o 


SB    13    SSb 


3OTB 


y- 


Ik 


;iil 


•>  "^V  -1, 

t^ 


O 
O 


Ctbrarg  uf 

ite  Hbrrlrr 


GIFT   OF 
Ben. 1  ami n  Ide   Wheeler 


*"/ 


The  Origin  of  the  Recessive 
Accent  in  Greek. 


MAURICE  BLOOMFIELD 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 


Reprinted  from  The  American  Journal  of  Philology, 
Vol.  IX,  N(,\.  r,,  pp.  1-41. 


\\\  LT  I  M  OR  K,    I  888 
Publication  Agency  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  RECESSIVE  ACCENT 
IN  GREEK. 

Jacob  Wackernagel,  in  KZ.  XXIII  457  fg.,  made  the  important 
discovery  that  the  so-called  '  recessive '  accent  in  the  finite  forms 
of  the  Greek  verb  represents  a  substitute  for  an  older  Indo- 
European  fact  in  sentence-accentuation,  to  wit,  that  the  finite  verb 
in  principal  clauses  was  treated  as  an  enclitic.  This  enclisis  was 
extended  in  Greek  to  the  finite  verb  in  both  principal  and  subordi- 
nate clauses,  but  was,  on  the  other  hand,  restricted  by  a  law 
according  to  which  an  enclitic  word  may  not  contain  more  than 
two  syllables  and  three  moras.  Therefore  only  two  syllables  at 
the  end  are  allowed  to  be  barytone :  fopopfv  for  enclitic  ^.  *(£epo/u,«/ ; 
three  moras  at  the  utmost,  and  that  only  in  a  polysyllabic  form, 
ending  in  a  trochaic  cadence  :  XeXoi7ro>ju,ey  for  ^  *\e\oura)p.€v ;  <pep<0ij.<-v 
for  JL  *<£epo>/xei/.  Elsewhere  only  two  moras  were  left  barytone: 

(pep6p.eda   for  -£.     <pepop,e()a  \   (pfpopcv  for  JL     (pepopfv  ',   (pepa>  for  ^.     (pepo)  } 

olda  (i.  e.  *f6l8d)  for  ^  *oi'Sa.  In  words  containing  altogether  but 
two  moras,  one  was  left  barytone  :  XtW,  augmentless  aorist  for 
^  *Ai7res  ;  /3i)  (i.  e.  */3ee)>  augmentless  aorist  for  j.  *fa.  Monosyllabic 
forms  of  one  mora  are  accented,  so  that  no  mora  is  left  toneless : 
/3ai/,  a-rav,  (pddv,  augmentless  aorists  for  ^  */3ay,  etc. 

We  may  refrain  at  present  from  any  attempt  at  justifying  the 
derivation  of  these  '  recessively '  accented  verbal  types  from  the 
assumed  enclisis  :  we  shall  return  to  that  question  in  the  end.  It 
is  enough  to  state  that  these  accentual  types  are  one  and  all  deriv- 
able from  the  enclitic  theory,  and  that  they  represent  every  con- 
ceivable manifestation  of  the  '  recessive '  mode  of  accentuation, 
providing  only  it  is  remembered  that  words  of  more  than  three 


411279 


syllables  are  treated  in  the  same  way  as  words  of  three  syllables  : 

do0r)o-6pc6a,  dwdpfOa  like  fjfjL€0a,  etc. 

In  an  article  entitled  '  Historical  and  critical  remarks  introduc- 
tory to  a  comparative  study  of  Greek  accentuation,'  American 
Journal  of  Philology,  IV  21  fg.,  I  proposed  an  extension  of  this 
law,  so  that  it  would  serve  as  a  theory  by  which  all  non-etymo- 
logical accentuation  in  Greek  words  could  be  accounted  for.  My 
statements  were  as  follows  : 

P.  56  (p.  36  of  the  reprint).  'The  explanation  of  the  Greek 
recessive  accent  must  start  from  the  finite  form  of  the  verb,  where 
alone  it  is  evidently  at  home.' 

P.  30  (10).  '  It  is  a  fact  perfectly  clear  that  the  recessive  accent  in 
Greek,  whatever  its  explanation,  started  with  the  finite  forms  of 
the  verb,  and  thence  succeeded  in  attacking  nominal  formations 
also.' 

P.  50  (30).  '  It  (the  recessive  accent)  excludes  with  particular  care 
non-finite  forms  of  the  verb  in  the  same  tense  system  and  in 
evident  connection  with  finite  forms,  exhibiting  thus  on  Greek 
ground  a  most  outspoken  character  as  a  grammatical  quality  of 
finite  verbs.' 

P.  62  (42).  '  No  doubt  the  noun  has  to  a  large  extent  followed 
the  verb  in  its  enclisis.' 

This  theory  involves,  of  course,  the  belief  that  the  extension  of 
the  recessive  accent  from  the  verb  to  the  noun  took  place  according 
to  processes  of  analogy,  not  different  in  principle  from  those  which 
elsewhere  break  in  upon  the  regular  line  of  phonetic  facts.  I 
shall  show  below,  in  a  somewhat  detailed  fashion,  the  manner  in 
which  this  must  be  imagined  to  have  taken  place. 

The  only  writer,  since  the  publication  of  my  treatise,  who  has 
subjected  the  question  of  the  recessive  accentuation  in  Greek  to 
an  independent  investigation  is  B.  I.  Wheeler,  in  his  book,  Der 
Griechische  Nominalaccent,  Strassburg,  1885.  Wheeler's  work  has 
been  for  me,  as  for  others,  one  of  great  interest.  He  has  brought 
to  his  work  good  training  and  esprit.  His  method  of  investi- 
gation is  comprehensive ;  he  does  not  draw  an  arbitrary  line  which 
cuts  off  the  domain  of  his  inquiry  from  adjoining  territory  open  to 
search  and  likely,  nay  certain,  to  yield  information.  His  study  is 
nothing  if  not  comparative.  His  methods  are  rigorously  exact, 
perhaps  a  little  overdrawn  in  that  direction,  as  I  shall  endeavor  to 
show  in  the  sequel.  He  seizes  upon,  with  rather  too  eager  emphasis, 
the  working  principle  which  I  formulated  in  my  article,  p.  31  (n) 


fg.,  namely,  that  accent  must  be  investigated  with  the  same  funda- 
mental presumptions,  or  principles,  as  other  phonetic  matter. 
Phonetic  change  in  accordance  with  phonetic  law  and  analogy,  I 
urged,  loc.  cit.,  are  the  prominent  factors,  aside  from  the  influence 
of  foreign  words,  which  are  at  the  bottom  of  the  frequently  por- 
tentous changes  on  the  face  of  the  accentuation  of  a  given  language. 
Wheeler  operates  with  these  factors  almost  entirely,  but  he  narrows 
the  operation  of  both  so  as  to  admit  under  these  heads  only  such 
phenomena  of  change  as  appear  familiarly  in  extra-accentual 
phonetics.  He  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  fact  that  the  centrifugal 
force  of  phonetic  change  and  the  centripetal  force  of  analogy 
operate  both  at  a  totally  different  rate  in  the  change  of  accentuation, 
and  in  the  change  of  other  phonetic  material,  simply  because  the 
scope  of  any  accentual  type  is  greater  than  that  of  any  type 
involving  a  given  mode  of  vocalization  or  consonantal  treatment. 
The  application  of  the  principles  of  phonetic  law  and  analogy  to 
the  accentuation  of  the  Lettish  dialect  is  a  la  rigueur  justifiable,  but 
it  must  be  done  in  the  spirit  of  the  preceding  sentence.  The 
Lithuanian  is  related  so  closely  to  Lettish  that  the  two  are  pre- 
ponderatingly  convertible,  if  a  certain  number  of  phonetic  changes 
are  rigorously  observed.  The  Lithuanian  exhibits  a  free  accentua- 
tion which  can  be  compared  and  identified  with  the  Vedic  accent 
in  spite  of  many  deviations.  The  Lettish,  which  is  related  as 
closely  to  the  Lithuanian  as  the  language  of  Herodotus  is  to  that 
of  Thucydides,  has  abrogated  all  etymological  accentuation  and 
has  the  summit  tone  everywhere  on  the  first  syllable.  The  change 
from  the  free  Baltic  accentuation  as  represented  by  the  Lithuanian 
to  this  mechanical  accentuation  of  the  Lettish  is  due,  or  may  be 
due,  to  a  preponderance  of  the.  analogy  of  such  words  as  accented 
the  first  syllable  etymologically,  and  in  this  sense  the  change  is 
analogical.  But  it  would  be  useless  to  demand  further  that  every 
word  which  obtained  this  accentuation  secondarily  must  exhibit 
some  formal  or  functional  cause  for  adopting  it.  Only  in  this  sense 
can  a  levelling  accentuation  be  the  result  of  analogy.  Such  are  the 
accentuation  of  the  radical  syllable  in  German,  the  accentuation  of 
the  final  syllable  in  the  French  of  the  last  century,  the  accentua- 
tion of  the  first  syllable  in  Bohemian  and  Serbian,  the  accentuation 
of  the  penult  in  Polish  and  Welsh,  the  complete  'recessive' 
accentuation  of  the  Aeolic,  the  practically  complete  barytonesis  of 
Latin  and  its  restriction  of  the  accent  within  three  syllables,  etc. 
Analogy  with  its  ordinary  scope — word  influencing  word,  form 


influencing  form — may  carry  on  its  humble  working  by  the  side 
of  and  in  the  teeth  of  a  great  leveling  tendency.  eKvpos  '  father-in- 
law  '  may  exhibit  oxy  tone  accentuation  secondarily  after  the  analogy 
of  cKvpd  in  spite  of  the  '  recessive '  tendency  (Wheeler,  p.  59). 
Originally  it  was  *cicvpos ;  cf.  Sk.  gvd$ura-;  Gothic  swaihra  (orig.  Ger- 
man *sweh[u]ro-')  ;  Lith.  sze'ssuras.  Such  cases  barely  cause  a 
ripple  on  the  quiet,  strong  current  which  carries  the  accentuation 
into  the  opposite  direction. 

The  foundation  upon  which  Wheeler's  book  is  built  is  a  new  theory 
in  explanation  of  the  '  recessive '  accentuation.  He  denies  that  the 
phenomena  thus  designated  were  originally  a  property  of  the  finite 
verb,  and  claims  that  they  are  due  to  a  phonetic  fact  which  permeated 
the  whole  material  of  the  language.  He  follows  a  suggestion  of 
OsthofTs,  which  had  been  previously  indicated  by  Curtius,  and 
assumes  that  in  words  containing  a  sufficient  number  of  moras  a 
secondary  accent  was  developed,  which  fell  upon  the  third  mora 
from  the  end  in  all  words  except  those  of  more  than  two  syllables 
ending  in  a  trochee  ;  in  the  latter  the  secondary  accent  fell  upon 
the  fourth  mora  from  the  end.1  This  secondary  accent  is  assumed 
to  have  developed  upon  all  spondaic  and  iambic  words  and 
upon  all  words  of  three  or  more  syllables.  For  reasons  which  it 
puzzles  the  reader  to  find  out,  he  excludes  from  the  effect  of  this 
secondary  accent  trochaic  dissyllables  (ol^os  '  way '  =.  Sk.  ema-  ; 
fAs  (  appearance  '=  Sk.  vedas  ;  aWos  '  fire '  =  Sk.  edhas],  though 
they  possess  just  as  many  moras  as  iambic  dissyllables  (rplnovs 
t  tripod  '  =  Sk.  tripad'},  and  the  '  secondary  '  accent  is  palpably 
represented  by  the  circumflex.  About  this  more  below. 

From  the  benefits  of  this  '  secondary '  accentuation  he  therefore 
excludes  short  monosyllables,  long  monosyllables,  words  of  two 
short  monosyllables,  and  trochaic  dissyllables.  He  assumes, 
moreover,  that  this  secondary  accentuation  gained  the  upper  hand 
under  certain  circumstances,  while  under  others  the  old  etymolo- 
gical accent  survived.  Accordingly  he  divides  the  whole  material 
of  the  language  into  four  categories,  barring  of  course  the  special 
effects  of  other  minor  phonetic  laws  and  analogies,2  as  follows : 

1  Cf.  Curtius  in  Fleckeisen's  Jahrbiicher  for  1855,  p.  342;  Osthoff,  cited  by 
Wheeler,  p.  10,  note  2 ;  and  Wheeler,  p.  9  fg. 

2  Wheeler  in  reality  posits  five  divisions,  but  his  fourth  division  is  one  alto- 
gether independent  of  the  general  theory.     In  it  he  has  collected  considerable 
material  which  aims  towards  the  establishment  of  a  phonetic  law  previously 
hinted  at  by  Bopp  and  Curtius,  according  to  which  words  originally  oxytone, 


I.  Monosyllabic   forms   and   dissyllabic  ones   with   short   final 
syllable  retain  the  inherited  accent  intact. 

II.  If  the  original  accent  lay  nearer  to  the  beginning  of  the 
word  than  the  secondary  accent,  then  the  secondary  accent  pre- 
vailed. 

III.  If  the  original  accent  coincides  with  the  secondary  accent, 
then  it  remains  undisturbed. 

IV  (Wheeler's  No.  V).  If  the  original  accent  lay  nearer  to  the 
end  of  the  word  than  the  secondary  accent,  there  arose  a  vacilla- 
tion which  was  settled  later  on  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other.  Some- 
times the  cause  of  the  choice  is  apparent,  sometimes  not. 

Wheeler's  book  was  reviewed  by  Wackernagel  in  the  Deutsche 
Literaturzeitung  for  1886,  column  221  fg.  (No.  7)  ;  by  Delbriick 
in  the  Literarisches  Centralblatt  for  1886,  column  290  (No.  9) ;  by 
Fr.  Stolz  in  the  Neue  Philologische  Rundschau  for  1886,  column 
J37  fe-  (No.  9) ;  by  Walter  Prellwitz  in  the  Gottinger  Gelehrte 
Anzeigen  for  1886,  p.  755  fg.  (No.  19  of  September  15)  ;  by  Kautz- 
mann  in  the  Berliner  Philologische  Wochenschrift  for  1886, 
column  597  fg.  (No.  19)  ;  by  Peile  in  the  Classical  Review  for 
1887,  Vol.  I,  No.  4,  p.  103  fg. ;  finally  by  a  writer  in  The  Nation 
(New  York)  for  1886,  April  8  (No.  1084,  p.  304).  Moreover, 
Brugmann  has  carried  this  theory  bodily  into  his  treatment  of 
Greek  accent  in  his  Grundriss  der  Vergleichenden  Grammatik, 
Vol.  I,  p.  543  fg. 

There  are  in  the  list  just  mentioned  as  fair  scholarly  names  as 
can  be  mustered  from  the  ranks  of  the  workers  in  Indo-European 
philology,  and  yet  I  venture  to  say  that  Wheeler's  book  has  hitherto 
not  been  subjected  to  the  kind  of  criticism  which  it  deserves. 
The  glamour  of  his  attractive  method  and  the  many  excellent 
observations  in  detail  have  blinded  his  readers  to  the  fundamental 
errors  upon  which  his  book  is  built. 

In  the  following  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  his  theory  is 
untenable  on  account  of  the  following  misconceptions : 

i.  He  regards  the  recessive  accent  as  one  which  manifests  itself 
only  on  the  penult  or  antepenult,  only  on  the  third  or  fourth  mora 
from  the  end,  and  fails  to  recognize  the  fact  that  dissyllabic  words 
of  two  moras  (XtVey  above),  and  monosyllabic  words  can  also  be 

having  a  dactylic  final  cadence,  become  paroxytones  in  Greek.  To  a  criticism 
of  this  thesis  we  may  hope  to  return  at  some  future  time.  This  is  the  fourth 
of  Wheeler's  five  theses,  and  as  we  shall  not  be  concerned  with  it  we  will  omit 
it  in  the  count. 


accented,  either  etymologically  or  recessively,  precisely  as  dis- 
syllabic or  polysyllabic  words  of  three  or  more  moras. 
iLj~)   j     2.  He  fails  to  recognize  the  fact  that  barytone  dissyllabic  tro- 
W^t        jchaic  words  are,  with  a  regularity  which  knows   practically  no 
1        ti*    exception,  accented  recessively,  not  etymologically.1 
VJ""*^  fa  -A  3.  Throughout  the  treatise  the  difference  between  circumflex  and 
-acute  accent  is  practically  ignored,  while  in  reality  a  circumflex 
upon  the  same  syllable  as  an  acute  indicates  in  the  vast  majority  of 
cases  not  only  a  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  tone,  but  also  a 
difference  of  position.     The  circumflex  accent  marks  an  accentua- 
tion further  away  from  the  end  of  the  word  than  the  acute. 

4.  He  has  obliterated  the  difference  which  is  manifestly  exhibited 
in  the  scope  of  the  recessive  accent  in  the  domain  of  the  finite 
verb  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  remaining  word-forms  on  the 
other. 

5.  Wheeler  was  led  to  his  identification  of  the  recessive  accent 
with  a  secondary  accent  by  a  fact  hinted  at  by  Wackernagel  and 
expanded  in  my  article,  p.  43  (23).    My  statement  is :  '  Enclisis  and 
recessive  accent  are  ruled  by  the  same  law  of  three  morae.'  .  .  . 

'  If  we   take   the    Cases   .   .    .   avdpairos  ris,   noiSes  rives,  Xoyoi   rii/ey,  WC 

have  in  every  case  an  enclisis  which  is  rectified  or  rather  cut  short 
by  the  law  of  three  morae  as  exhibited  in  the  general  recessive 
accent.'  The  identification  of  the  recessive  accent  of  the  verb 
with  the  secondary  accent  of  a  group  consisting  of  an  orthotone 
word  plus  an  enclitic  word  is  the  keynote  of  Wackernagel's  and  my 
own  theory.  In  the  group  avdpanov  nva  the  secondary  accent  clearly 
goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  existence  of  a  second  word  ;  the  enclitic 
secondary  accent  of  ^pol^Ba  in  the  group  frybv  (pepoip.f6a  for 


1  The  Trpurov  -tpevdos  which  vitiates  Wheeler's  theory  manifests  itself  very 
clearly  in  his  statement  on  p.  2  :  "  Den  '  recessiven7  accent  mussen  wir  also  so 
aufnehmen  wie  wir  ihn  vorfinden :  als  einen  accent,  der  auf  der  antepaenultima 
oder  paenultima  ruht,  je  nachdem  ob  die  endsilbe  kurz  oder  lang  ist."  This 
statement  shows,  as  does  the  entire  treatise,  that  the  '  recessive  '  character  of 
the  following  accentual  types  has  in  reality  escaped  his  notice :  (i)  olda  (^^)  ; 
(2)  Awre?  (^^};  (3)  /??  (-) ;  (4)  P&v,  3d  plur.  aor.  (w).  So  also,  p.  6 :  "  Nun 
ist  aber  der  recessive  accent  kein  specifischer  accent,  sondern  vielmehr  ein  ac- 
centprinzip,und  fasst  in  sich  paroxytona,  proparoxytona,  und  properispomena." 
This  is  true,  but  it  embraces,  furthermore,  perispomena,  and  short  monosyl- 
labic oxytona.  The  two  statements  are,  moreover,  inconsistent :  the  pro- 
perispomena which  are  introduced  as  '  recessive  '  on  p.  6  are  excluded  by  the 
statement  on  p.  2,  as  also  impliedly  on  p.  TO:  "  Ich  gehe  so  weit  und  nehme 
diesen  nebenton  fur  jedes  spondaische,  iambische  oder  polysyllabische  wort 


(=1.  ^L.yugom  bheroimedhd)  is  also  due  to  the  second 
word.  Wheeler,  in  claiming  that  a  singfeword  in  sentence-nexus, 
e.  g.  *yeVo/u«>off— Sk.  jdnamdnas,  developed  the  same  secondary 
accent,  demonstrably  associated  only  with  presence  of  a  second 
word,  advances  a  hypothesis  which  is  unlikely  on  the  face  of  it, 
and  whose  untenableness  will  be  demonstrated  in  the  course  of 
this  essay. 

We  turn  now  to  a  review  of  the  several  theses  propounded  by 
Wheeler  and  reported  above. 

On  pages  13-38  he  attempts  to  prove  his  first  thesis,  namely, 
that  monosyllabic  words  and  dissyllabic  words  with  short  final 
syllables  retain  the  original  etymological  accentuation  intact.  As 
far  as  long  monosyllables  are  concerned  this  statement  is  correct 
in  the  equation  Zeu$-z=Sk.  dydtfs  =  I.  E.  dieus,  but  it  is  incorrect 
in  the  equations  vavs  =  Sk.  nails  =•  I.  E.  naus  ;  p.vs  =  Sk.  mus  == 
I.  E.  mus;  /3oCff~Sk.  gdus—l.  E.  jous.1  The  difference 
between  the  accentuation  of  vavs  and  Zeus-,  as  far  as  quality  and 
position  are  concerned,  is  clearly  the  same  as  that  in  fifjv  II.  13. 
297,  ftco  Eur.  Ale.  864,  when  compared  with  /3a?  II.  6.  65 ;  S>  (from 
t7//u)  Soph.  Ph.  816:  «s  II.  i.  434;  arfv  II.  n.  744,  o-rS>  Eur. 

Ale.  864:  crra?  II.  l6.  231;  65)  Soph.  O.  C.  480:  6tis  II.  23.  254; 
dS>  Od.  20.  296:  dovs  Od.  15.  369;  <pqv  II.  l8.  326,  ffis  II.  5.  473, 

0ij  II.  2.  37,  <£a  Find.  I  2.  n,  $&  Aesch.  Ch.  91  :  <j>as  II.  9.  35  ;  50 
(Sua>)  II.  17.  210 :  dis  Xen.  Cyr.  5.  5.  9;  <£C  II.  6.  253,  14.  232:  $ts 
Od.  18.  410,  Find.  Ol.  n.  20;  yvs>v  II.  4.  357,  Hes.  Th.  551.  3, 
yi/S  II.  i.  411  :  yvovs  Soph.  El.  731 ;  $&}  II.  ii.  451,  <f>6G)  PI.  Polit. 

266:    $0as    Her.  3.  71,  9.  46,    (wro-)00aff   II.    7.    144;   rXiy    II.   5.  385: 

rXus-  Soph.  O.  C.  1076 ;  *dp<£  in  <J7rdfyxo  Ar.  Pax,  234 :  (mro-^pas  Od. 
17.  516;  ^j/,2  'I  was,'  II.  2.  96,  Soph.  Tr.  414,  etc.  (see  Veitch, 
Greek  Verbs  Irregular  and  Defective,  1879,  p.  225),  rjs  '  he  was/ 
Doric  e.  g.  I  A.  342.  3,  Lesbian,  Theocr.  30.  16,  Tegeatic, 
(Gelbke  in  Curtius'  Studien  II  40;  G.  Meyer,  Griech.  Gramm.2 
p.  432),  ^,  'he  was,'  II.  5.  9,  Soph.  Tr.  9,  Thuc.  2.  3,  etc. 
(Veitch,  ibid.)  :  <ai/  Horn.  Hymns  19.  32,  Soph.  Ag.  767,  etc., 
el's  Doric,  Lesbic  (KZ.  XXVII  393).  We  may  add  the  circum- 

]I  shall  endeavor  to  show  below  (p.  18)  that  the  equations  /3wy=  Vedic 
g&mt  and  /3«f  —  Vedic  gas,  as  also  Z//P  —  Vedic  dyam,  are  probably  correct  for 
accent  as  well  as  the  sounds. 

*%  'I  was,'  Aesch.  Ag.  1637,  Soph.  O.  C.  973,  etc.  (Veitch,  p.  225),  is  Attic 
contraction  of  the  old  perfect-form  rja  =  Sk.  asa.—  I.  E.  esm.  The  subjunctive 
Attic  u  is  also  a  contract  form  from  Epic  £w. 


c  )     / 
V  ^      ' 


8 

fleeted  monosyllables :  ^,  '  he  said,'  II.  6.  390,  22.  77,  Od.  3.  337, 
22.  292,  Theocr.  22.  75,  Plato  Rep.  327  ;  r,Vj  'I  said,'  PI.  Rep. 
328,  Luc.  Philop.  23.  Here  also  perhaps  belongs  K*»J)  '  he  scraped,' 
II.  ii.  639  :  see  Veitch,  379;  G.  Meyer2,  p.  47.  The  accent  of  the 
augmentless  imperfect  xp*iv>  Find.  Fr.  100,  Soph.  El.  529,  579,  etc. 
(Veitch,  p.  707),  can  be  considered  significant  only  in  so  far  as  it 
may  perhaps  reflect  the  accent  of  ^  (xpi)  plus  rjv)  ;  cf.  G.  Meyer ', 
p.  430,  note  2.  Further  instances  of  long  monosyllabic  oxytone 
participles  are :  KTUS  in  Kara-*™?  II.  22.  323,  Aesch.  Sept.  965,  Eur. 

I.    T.    715;    (aico-^o&els   HippOCr.  5.   176;    *(a7ro-)/7>as   in   drrovpas,  II. 

1.356,  etc. ;  (a7ro-)KXa?,  Anacr.  17  (Bergk)  ;  (eVi^Ti-ras-,  Anth.  n. 
407,  (aTTo-Vrus  12.  105;  (e7ri->Xa>?  H.  6.  291 ;  (ay^t-)^Xcos  G.  Meyer 2, 

P-  459- 

No  one  can  fail  to  admit  that  the  difference  between  the  oxytone 
J  accentuation  of  these  long  monosyllabic  participles  and  the  peri- 
I  spomenon  of  the  finite  forms  is  fundamental :  that  in  fact  the  accent 
f  of  the  participles  is  etymological,  and  that  of  the  finite  forms  is 
recessive.     As  ffiv l  is  to  /3us,  so  are  XiW  II.  10.  406  :  \ura>v  II.  9. 
194  ;   oiSe :  eldws ;   ireKovdc  i  TTfTrovQo)?,  etc.      Now  the  circumflex  of 
vavs,  pvs,  /3ovs,  j3£ff,  as  well  as  the  circumflex  of  Aeolic  Zeus,  TT™£, 
etc.,  differs  from  the  acute  of  Zew  in  the  same  way :  it  is  recessive. 
The  same  difference  is  to  be  found  in  a  considerable  number  of 
nominatives,   consisting   of  a  long  monosyllable,   for  which   no 
etymology,  or  only  a  partial  one  has  been  found.2     The  following 
are  oxytone,  and  have  presumably  preserved  the  old  accentuation 
of  this  type.     In  a  number  of  cases  there  is  a  conflict  of  authorities, 
which  is  indicated  under  the  word  discussed : 

nipt  '  month,'  Doric  ufa  Ionic  /x«Vs :  I.  E.  stems  mens-,  mes-,  Vedic 
mas  (?  mdng-catil,  Grassm.);  Lat  mens-is,  Goth,  mena,  Lith.  menu, 
Old  Irish  mi,  Old  Bulg.  mesecl. 

xQav  '  earth  ' :  Vedic  stem  ksam-,  Zend  zem-y  Lat.  hum-us,  Lith. 
z /me,  Old  Bulg.  zemlja. 

X^v  f  goose ':  Doric  x«v :  Sk.  hansd,  Lat.  anser,  QHG.gans,  Lith. 
zas\s,  Old  Bulg.  gasL 

xw  'hedgehog'  (Hesych.):  Lat.  her;  cf.  Cu.  Etym.5,  p.  200. 

1  fifjv  is  not  Vedic  gam,  etc.,  but  (Jsev  for  -^  *{3qv  —  Vedic  -^  gfim,  etc. 

2  It  affords  me  sincere  pleasure  to  acknowledge  that  I  have  been  aided  very 
materially  and  most  intelligently  in  making  the  following  collection  of  mono- 
syllabic nouns  by  a  member  of  my  seminary  for  Greek  grammar,  Mr.  Henry 
Clarke,  A.  M.,  formerly  Fellow  and  now  Fellow  by  Courtesy  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University. 

3/xe/f  is  wrongly  perispomenon  in  Stob.  Eel.  1,27,  p.  556;  see  Chandler  §  566. 


'spleen':  Ved.  pllhdn-,  Zd.  spereza-,  Lat.  lien,  Old  Bulg. 
slezena. 

Bfo  'wild  beast,'  Lakon.  o-^p,  Aeol.  (p/?p :  Lat.ferus. 

f?s,  plur.  IMS,  up*  '  strength ':  Lat.  vis. 

6a>s,  &a>6s,  stem  6af-  'jackal '  from  root  QtF,  Sk.  dhdv  ' to  run.' 

|3Xa|,  As/ok,  '  slack,'  '  silly ';  cf.  dupXawv  and  the  Sk.  roots  mid 
1  to  wither/  mlech  ' to  babble.'  Cf.  Am.  Journ.  Phil.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  48. 

<po>p,  (pcopo?,  'thief:  <pepo>;  cf.  \^z.\..far,furis. 

<np;}£,  o-cprjKos,  Doric  <r<pa|,  oxpa/coff :  Lat.  vespa,  OHG.  wefsa,  Lith. 
vapsa  (?). 

o-Kvi^j  vKvi<$>6s  and  O-KI/TTTOS-  ;  also  Ki/fy  and  O-KTX//-  '  a  kind  of  ant,' 
cf.  Old  Bulg.  sknipa  'culex';  cf.  Lob.  Par.  114,  Cu.  Etym.5  694. 

pf^,  pTTrdy,  'mat':  Lat.  scirpus,  OHG.  sciluf;  cf.  Cu.5  352. 

xeip,  Dor.  x^p,  ground  form,  in  Timocreon  fr.  9  B.,  \eps  '  hand ': 
Sk.  hdrdmi. 

\is  '  smooth '  (cf.  XTro?)>  stem  yXtr :  Lat.  glittus,  Lith.  £-/zYw.? 
'smooth';  see  Cu.  Etym.5  p.  367. 

TTOVS,  Dor.  Trds-,  Hesychius  :  TTMS'TTOS.  VTTO  Acoptewv :  Sk.  pad,  Old 
Norse  /^/r.  The  accent  of  TTOVS  is  in  no  wise  significant  for  the 
accentuation  of  long  monosyllables  in  general,  as  this  form  of  the 
nominative  is  certainly  secondary ;  see  KZ.  XXV  14.  The  writing 
irovs  occurs  and  is  supported  in  some  measure  by  the  grammarians  : 
see  Lobeck  Paralip.  93,  Chandler  566  (p.  163).  For  Doric  nS>s 
see  below,  p.  15. 

7rpot'£,  npoiKos  '  gift,'  Ionic  npotg  ace.  to  Etym.  Mag.  495,  32.  The 
word  is  reported  as  perispomenon  by  Herodian,  but  apparently 
this  is  incorrect :  see  Gottling,  p.  242,  Chandler  566  (p.  163). 

Spw^  •  avdpcoTTos  (Hesychius).    Probably  a  compound  =  i/ 
cf.  the  Vedic  stem  nr-  'man.'     Cf.  also  i/o>\^  (=  ^-cty) 
o\/m  (Hesych.);  Lob.  Par.,  p.  118. 

cug,  alyos  '  goat.'  There  is  some  authority  for  the  circumflex  in 
Attic;  see  Lob.  Par.  99;  Chandler  566. 

ddX£  =  auXa^  '  furrow.'  &X£  is  reported  in  Orion  and  Arcadius  ; 
see  Lob.  Par.  in,  Gottl.  242,  Chandler  566  (p.  163). 

7rro>£  '  crouching  with  fear ';  cf.  TTTCOO-O-OO  ;  7rr<»£  is  reported  by  a 
grammarian,  Gottl.  243. 

T|,  ace.  oca,  also  T^,  nom.  plur.  facs  '  a  grub  which  destroys  vines '; 
Lob.  Par.  pp.  103.  104;  101.  115;  Curtius  Etym.5  461. 

pis  (late  pfi/),  gen.  pivos,  'nose,'  and  Bis  (late  6iv),  gen.  6iv6s 
'  heap,'  are  universally  reported  as  oxytone,1  but  there  is  good 

1  Cf.  also  pe/f,  pe^of  and  Oeif,  6eiv6^,  Lob.  Par.  p.  91. 


10 

authority  for  both  \is  and  \ls  '  lion'  (Cu.5  366),  ids  and  ids  '  wood- 
worm '  (cf.  Sk.  kita  ?).  The  authorities  are  cited  and  discussed 
Gottl.  241,  Lob.  Par.  92,  Chandler  566  (p.  162),  Misteli,  Zur 
griechischen  betonung,  p.  116. 

K\€LS  :  Lat.  cldvis,  '  key.'  Here  also  there  is  authority  for  the 
circumflex  :  Lob.  Par.  92,  Chandler  566  (p.  162).  The  Doric 
(Theocr.  15.  33)  *Xd£,  K\aKos  no  doubt  belongs  here,  though  the 
mode  of  its  derivation  from  K\fis  is  obscure. 

6evs,  Doric  =  0e6s,  ace.  6evv.  The  circumflex  is  reported : 
Chandler  ibid.  Likewise  Doric  \evs  =  Xaas. 

Furthermore  the  following  are  unanimously  reported  as  oxytone : 
'thrown':  root-forms  /3eXe-,  /3X^- ;  nXws,  'swimmer':  TrXe'co, 
'thief:   /tXeVro)  ;   /3i?£  'cough,'   cf.  /3?}orcr£o;   O-KWI//-  'Owl,'   cf. 

6f]s  '  serf/  cf.  ridq/u ;  rpa>£  '  caterpillar,'  cf.  rpa>ya> ;  Sat's-,  6>}s-  (Lob. 
Par.  p.  82),  &UTOS  '  feast ':  daia>  '  to  divide';  0p/?i/,  Dor.  <ppa»>,  '  breast, 
mind';  6dp  'louse';  p^v  (late)  'lamb,'  cf.  Curtius,  Etym.5  p.  345; 
xpvs  '  skin  ';  pa£,  paydy,  and  later  po)|,  pwyo's  '  berry';1  /c^  'seagull,' 
cf.  Cu.5  p.  567  ;  &j£  '  wood-worm  ';  <9pi^,  6piiros '  wood-worm  ';  <ppig, 
(pp$y6s  '  ruffling,  ripple ';  K\<UV  '  sprout ';  *reiV,  Kret/ds-  '  comb  ';  Qaty 
'flatterer';  6/xcos-,  5/icody  'slave':  Sa/ia-o>;  yu\^,  -yuTrds-  'vulture';  ypu^, 
yplTTos  '  griffin ';  o-^  '  sore,'  cf.  O^TTO)  ;  o-jy?,  o-ed?  (as  though  from 
a-evi)  later  gen.  O-TJTOS-,  '  moth  ';  o-cptjv  '  wedge ';  ^^  '  gall-insect '; 
\^f£,  \|ri^dff  '  crumb ';  ^ap,  ^dpds,  Ion.  ^;p,  ^pd?  '  starling,'  cf.  Cu.6 
355  5  pty  '  brushwood ';  irpw£  '  dew-drop ';  TTU^,  irvyos,  late  form 
of  TTuy^  '  buttocks ';  yXyv,  late  form  for  yXrjvrj  '  pUpil ';  /oyp,  /c/^pdy, 
'fate':  /ce/pco;  <pd>9,  ^xord?  'man';  TT^,  Tri/Tyd?  'suffocation':  7n>fyo>; 
po)|  'cleft':  pr'jywfjii;  fog,  prjyos,  in  imitation  of  Latin  rex,  regis\ 
o-wp,  o-eip,  Chandler  565 ;  oty,  Et.  Mag.  344,  55,  gen.  WTTOS  '  eye,' 
o-Koty '  ^Mpa  (Hesych.),  Lob.  Par.  p.  115.  The  grammarians  posit 
a  nom.  Kpas  for  gen.  Kpuros,  ace.  Kpara  '  head  '. 

For  8ovg  and  5p^  see  Lob.  Par.  p.  102  ;  8us  (Cu.5  p.  237  writes 
—  Sdo-is  ib.  87  ;  ^'p,  ^pd?  ib.  76  ;  KI/W^  *™<pXdy  (Hesych.)  ib.  118  ; 
ib.  94 ;  Xa\^  ib.  1 1 1 ;  XO>A//-,  \<on6s  =  Xo)7r/7  (^Xa/iuy  Hesych.)  ib. 
118;  Trpew  ib.  93;  ravs  (peyas,  TTO\VS  Hesych.)  ib.  91.  Here  we 
may  mention  xpv  (G.  Meyer,2  p.  430)  if  the  word  is  indeed  of  sub- 
stantival origin. 

The  following  proper  names  consisting  of  a  long  monosyllable 
are  oxytone : 

Zeus-,  Boeot.  Aevs',  Zys  (owes  its  rj  to  the  accus.  zfjv:  Herodian  2. 
911.9,  from  Pherecydes),  Dor.  Zas  (ibid.) ;  z^,  Dor.  Zav,  Boeot.  A^, 

1  Cf.  also  dpai-,  Lob.  Phryn.  p.  76  ? 


II 

hysterogenous  nominatives  abstracted  from  gen.  Zqi/o?,  znvl.  All 
nominatives  except  Aeolic  Zevs  agree  in  their  oxytonesis.  Cf.  G. 
Meyer,  Gr.  Gramm.2  324.  The  following  also  are  oxytone:  'Pan/, 

XdV,  "Hp,  Etp,  Ncop,  T\T)s,  K\r)S,  Kp?;s,  Tpa>s,  TXj^y,  $pr')S,  Tvijs,  Neuy,  3>Xeu?, 
2>7p,  "Q\^,  Fetp  (r/p),  2etp,  Kap,  Mr^j/,  Upon/,  Hay,  IIap,  'Pap  ('Papoy  and 

',  &0us  (3>6avTos),  iipu£  (or  Hpa|).  Hesychius  has  0po>  'Xt/zos- ; 
(see  Lob.  Par.  120).  For*Atp  see  Lobeck  Par.  p.  74 ; 
B^X  and  BciX,  ib.  70;  B/Jp,  ib.  75,  note  8  ;  rXoW  (also  T\ovs  and  rX<£ff, 
ib.  95) ;  Avcvs,  ib.  92 ;  Ilpa£/ib.  94 ;  Mfc,  ib.  82 ;  Ma*,  ib.  88 ;  'Pat£, 
ib.  99;  CP^,  ib.  113;  'Pity,  ib.  117;  Sovp,  ib.  77;  *^et'p,  ib.  74;  $f£ 
(Boeot.  or  Doric  for  2(pt'-y£),  ib.  104. 

The  following  particles  consisting  of  a  long  monosyllable  are 
oxytone :  M,  Boeot. /m',  Elian  pa,  =.Vedicma,  Zd. and  Achem.  ma  =2 
I.  E.  me:  f},  Boeot.  el'  =  Vedic  vd  (enclitic)  =.  I.  E.  ve\l  rco?  'so/ 
perhaps  zz:  to  an  I.  E.  ablative  tod  plus  a  later  s-,  &s  'so,'  a  corre- 
sponding form  of  an  I.  E.  stem  io-  (also  a>? ;  cf.  Chandler,  §934) ; 
ty  '  now,  already ';  dai  '  then '  (ri  Sat  *  what  then  ? ') ;  wj  (j/»)  r6»/  Am), 
i/at '  verily  ' :  Lat.  nae ;  nai '  and/  Cu5.  138  ;  ^v,  Doric  pav  'certainly, 
truly  ';  7rXr>  (Doric  rrXav),  Cu.5  281 ;  b^v,  Hyper-Doric  dav  'long,  for 
a  long  while';  \ai  (eVl  atVxpoupytW,  Hesych.) ;  at  'O  that,  would 
that ';  oi',  interjection  of  pain ;  o>,  interjection  of  pleasure  and  pain ; 
Boeotian  TOW,  rou  '  thou/  are  oxytone  ;  not  is  the  Argive  form  for 
Trport,  Trpos- ;  pa,  poetic  for  pddiov  (cf.  Lob.  Par.  119),  is  probably  con- 
tracted from  a  dissyllabic  form :  see  Osthoff,  Perfect,  p.  447,  note  ; 
for  /Spa  see  ibid. ;  <p»?  '  as,  like/  Cu5.  394,  occurs  both  as  $77  and  <p^. 

The  scope  of  the  circumflex  in  long  monosyllabic  nouns  is  as 
follows : 

vavs,  Epic  and  Ion.  VTJVS,  Dor.  vdi>$  :  Sk.  ndtist  Lat.  ndv-is,  Old 
Pers.  ndvi,  Old  Irish  nau. 

/3oOs,  Dor.  j3a>y,  accusatives  jSovi/  and  ps>v  :  Vedic  gdiis,  ace.  sg. 
£-«w,  ace.  plur.  gas,  Zend  £Yz0,  OHG.  ^?^,  Lettish  guwis,  Old 
Bulg.  govedo,  (Lat.  to). 

ypaCs,  Ionic  yp^vy,  'old  woman'  :  ytpw  'old  man/  cf  Sk.jarant- 
'old  man.' 

Ti-avs,  TroCis,  '  boy,  girl/  on  old  inscriptions  on  vases,  cf.  Trat? ;  see 
Benfey  Wurzellexicon  II  73,  Cu5.  287,  Gust.  Meyer  Gr.  Gramm.' 
p.  312,  note.  The  circumflex  may  be  assumed  upon  the  basis  of 
the  proportion :  ypavs  :  ypats  (ypafLbi)  =  navs  :  Trals  (Tra/tfis) ,  see 
Meister,  Zur  Griechischen  Dialektologie,  p.  2. 

1  A  very  different  view  is  advanced  by  Froehde  in  Bezz.  Beitr.  VII  327  fg. 
and  supported  by  Osthoff,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Perfects,  p.  128-9. 


13 

y\at£  'owl';  cf.  Vedic  gldiis  'tumor'  (?).  For  the  oxytonesis 
of  the  word  in  Doric  see  below.1 

ous,  Cretan  and  Laconic  avs,  Ionic  «$•  (inscription  from  Delos), 
Doric  &>ff  'ear'  :  Lat.  aus-culto,  aur-is,  OHG.  drd,  Lith.  aus-is, 
Old  Bulg.  uch-o  (Gen.  us-es-e^),  Old  Irish  6.  The  declension  is 
heteroclitic  :  the  stem  of  the  oblique  cases  is  ova-r  =  *OVO-V-T  — 
I.  E.  ous-n-,  contained  in  Goth,  stem  ausin-,  nom.  auso,  gen.  ausms. 
See  De  Saussure,  M6inoire,  p.  224.* 

P.VS,  ace.  /jivi>,  'mouse'  :  Sk.  mus,  Lat.  mas,  OHG.  mus,  Old 
Bulg.  mys-i.  Cf.  also  a-p,vs  '  6  p.vs  and  o-^is  '  pv?,  o-p-tvQa,  both  in 
Hesychius. 

<rvs  and  us-  'swine':  Zend  /iu,  Lat.  sil-s,  OHG.  su,NHG.sau; 
cf.  also  Sk.  su-kards,  Old  Bulg.  sw-inija,  Goth,  sv-ein.  Accusatives 
(r€z/  and  \iv* 

dpvs  '  tree,  oak  '  :  Sk.  dru-s,  Zd.  dru,  Goth,  tow,  AS.  treow, 
Engl.  /r<?<?. 

/3a{)ff,  a  word  of  unknown  meaning,  Joann.  Alex.  TOVLK.  napayy. 
pp.  7,  35;  see  Lobeck  Paralip.  p.  91;  Chandler  566  (p.  162).  Cf. 
also  /3aO  '  aSos-  uvdovs  (Hesych.) 

Hesychius  has  K&S'  elpKTrj  'enclosure';  cf.  KolXos,  Lat.  cav-us,  etc. 
Cu.6,  p.  157. 

yfj  (  Ionic-Attic)  ya  (  Doric),3  '  earth.'  The  contraction  from 
Ionic  yea  or  from  *yaa  (^yr}o-  in  Attic  yeo)-)  is  unproved.  The 
etymology  seems  unknown.  See  Cu.  Etym.5,  p.  177  ;  G.  Meyer2, 
p.  200,  note  2. 

/3A?7p  —  fitXeap  '  bait  '  is  Aeolic  ;  the  circumflex  therefore  proves 
nothing.4  For  iras  '  all,'  /cJ/p  '  heart,'  $<»s-  '  light,'  els  '  one,'  p.va  = 
mina,  see  below. 

o-Koip,  O-KUTOS  '  dung  '  :  Vedic  $dkrt,  $aknds.  There  is  some  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  oxytonesis  ;  see  Lobeck  Par.  77,  Chandler  564  ; 
Liddell  and  Scott,  sub  voce.  The  Dorians  are  reported  to  have 
accented  o-*&>p  ;  see  below. 

o-rals,  crrairoff,  '  dough  from  wheaten  flour.'  There  is  authority 
for  trrais  also  :  Lob.  Par.  88.  For  Kpavg  and  *a££  (?)  see  Lob.  Par., 
p.  100;  Tras  ibid.  78;  o-rpovs  (Hesych)  ibid.  93.  Hesychius  has 

also 


1  For  traces  of  oxytone  y/lai>f  outside  of  the  Doric  dialect  see  Lobeck  Paralip. 
109;  Chandler  §566  ;  R.  Meister,  loc.  cit.,  p.  3  ;  Liddell  and  Scott,  sub  voce. 

"  G.  Meyer's  explanation  of  ovg  as  a  contract  form  from  *oi>ao<;,  *ovo£,  *6of 
does  not  seem  to  me  a  likely  one,  see  Gramm.2,  p.  326. 

3  For  Doric  da  see  Ahrens,  Dial.  Dor.  p.  80  ;  Cu.5  p.  492  ;  for  Cypriote  C« 
G.  Meyer2,  p.  200,  note  2.  4  Etym.  Mag.  and  Hesychius  report  fi^fo. 


12 

Neuter  nouns  consisting  of  a  long  monosyllable  are  regularly 
perispomenon.1  In  addition  to  ovs,  aK&p,  arals  there  are  :  nvp  '  fire  ': 
Umbr./zV,  OHG.  fuir,  fiur.  Herodian  2,  919,  cites  a  form  nvip 
from  Simonides  of  Amorgus,  which  leaves  room  for  the  suspicion 
that  nvp  is  contracted.  But  the  genitive  irvpos  (with  gradation 
of  stem  and  shift  of  accent),  as  well  as  Umbrian  pir  (cf.  sim 
and  sify  probably  equal  to  Gr.  vv  and  vs),  points  to  the  inde- 
pendent origin  of  v  in  the  word  ;  <pou,  probably  the  Pontic  name 
of  the  plant  valerian  ;  pa,  '  rha  barbara  ';  8&,  Epic  for  d&pa  '  house  ';  f 

Kpl,  Epic  form  for  KpiQr)  'barley';  (pap  '  garment  '  (cf.  (papoi)  is  re-  ^C  / 
ported  by  Arcad.  124  as  perispomenon:  Liddell  and  Scott  write 
(pdp  ;  63>  is  reported  as  an  apocop.  form  for  6&pa£,  Anth.  P.  6, 
85  ;  ppl  according  to  Strabo  was  used  by  Hesiod  for  ftpiapov,  see 
Liddell  and  Scott  sub  fBpi  ii.  For  aav  (and  a-dv)  see  Lob.  Par.  77  ; 
for  arrow  ibid.  1  20.  The  names  of  the  letters  are  of  neuter  gender 
and  perispomena  :  /ML»,  vv,  gv,  nd  (Trl),2  p&>,  rau,  (pel  (<£t)i  Xe*  OtO>  tyh  &• 

Monosyllabic  accusatives  singular,  long  in  quantity,  are  peri- 
spomenon :  zi/i/,  Doric  ASj/  =  Vedic  dyam  ;  Dor.  p&v  =  Vedic  gam 
(/3o£)j>  is  analogical  after  nom.  (Bovs)  ',  ypavv,  vavv,  dpvv,  oi>v,  Iv,  p.vvt 
Xtv,  KIV,  K\flv,  Qtvv  (Doric,  ace.  of  6evs  =  ^edy). 

The  corresponding  plurals  are  also  circumflected  :  Dor.  /3o>s 
(Theocr.  8,  47)  =  Vedic  gas,  Zend  £tf0.  The  primary  character 
of  Attic  /3ovy  is  doubtful  (G.  Meyer2,  362).  Further  vavs,  ypavs,  aOs, 


The  following  proper  names  are  perispomenon:  Q&V,  Tpfjs,  2i)p, 
,  Tav£,  QfvO,  Qvs  (Qvv,  Lob.  Par.  86),  K5)s,  T\S)s  (also  rXoC?  and 
ws),  Xws>,  TXws-,  Kpws-,  ASs-,  Aay,  $v£>v  Q  Chandler,  p.  162,  note  i), 
a£,  Ionic  Qp?ji£,  Homer  and  the  tragedians  Qpjg  (contracted?), 
.  For^HX  see  Lob.  Par.  pp.  70,  116;  liav  (?)  ib.  71.  The 
remaining  ones  are  of  the  first  declension  :  Tpas,  Bay,  Xi/as,  lias-,  eSs, 
;  $Xa  (Herod.  4,  178:  our  editions  read  $Xa).  For  npSs 
the  acute  is  also  reported  :  Chandler  566  (p.  163). 
The  following  particles  consisting  of  a  long  monosyllable  are 
perispomena:  i/Cj/'now':  Sk.  nu  (and  nu)t  Zend  nu,  Old  Bulg. 
^j/w^  ;  Ionic,  Aeolic,  Boeotian  and  Doric  o>i>,  Attic  olv  '  then  ';  av 
1  again  ':  Lat.  aut,  autem  ;  ^  '  truly  '  (cf.  fj  above)  ;  &>,  vocative 
participle  (cf.  ^  above)  ;  a,  interjection  of  astonishment  and  pity  ; 
at,  interjection  of  wonder,  blame,  etc.  :  Lat.  ait  a  loan-word  (cf.  al 
above)  ;  <peO  '  ah,  alas  ';  <pO  '  fie,'  cf.  Lat.  fue,  fu  ;  8a  (<£eG  fia, 

1  Cf.  Chandler,  §563  ;  Phil.  Anzeiger  for  1883,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  580. 
2Cf.  Meisterhans,  Gramxnatik  der  Attischen  Inschriflen,  pp.  i,  24. 


14 

da)  J  fipvv  («7re«0  '  tO  Cry  fipvv  ';  rav,1  Cu.5  686  ;  ypv  (ovde  ypv).  A 
number  of  particles,  representing  frozen  case-forms  of  pronominal 
stems,  are  perispomena  :  «•?},  rfs  TTO,  but  also  TH?,  rf  enclitics  with 
supplementary  accent  ;  -n},  ^,  etc.  (old  instrumentals  :  G.  Meyer2, 
p.  365)  ;  wot,  of  (locatives)  ;  TTOV,  ov,  genitives  ;  7r«$-,2  *«$-,  &>$•  (also  cos  : 
ablatives),  etc.  The  circumflex  of  these  particles  is  no  doubt  in 
many  cases  old,  antedating  the  period  of  the  recessive  accent, 
as  in  7701,  ol  (cf.  Hanssen  in  KZ.  XXVII,  p.  614),  or  a  genuine 
rhetorical  circumflex,  as  in  interrogative  particles  and  interjections. 
They  are  given  here  for  the  sake  of  completeness.  Similarly  na, 
@a,  p.a  are  hypocoristic  vocatives,  and  have  vocative  accent. 

The  report  that  the  Aeolians  circumflected  every  long  monosyl- 
lable :  Zws,  p&g,  TJTCO£,  Span//-,  xn*»  e*c'>  *s  universally  accepted,  and 
accords  with  the  remaining  facts  of  the  Aeolian  system  of  accentu- 
ation ;  see  Ahrens,  Dial.  Aeol.,  p.  n  ;  Anton  Ftihrer,  Ueber  den 
lesbischen  Dialekt,  p.  viii.  There  is,  however,  a  report  of 
Choeroboscus,  somewhat  doubtful  as  to  its  meaning  and  scope, 
to  the  effect  that  the  Aeolians  treated  monosyllables  as  oxytones, 
and  there  are  also  special  reports  to  the  effect  that  individual  long 
monosyllables  in  Aeolic  received  the  acute.  Cf.  above  sub  vocc. 
rfv  and  jSX^p,  and  Chandler  §567.  I  see  no  good  reason  to  doubt 
the  universally  accepted  perispasis  of  long  monosyllables  in  this 
dialect. 

The  Dorians  are  reported  to  have  accented  y\av£  and  o-Ko>p  in 
distinction  from  Attic  y\av£  and  o-*6>p  ;  see  Gottling,  p.  243  ;  Ahrens, 
p.  27  ;  Johannes  Schmidt,  KZ.  XXV  14  ;  R.  Meister,  Zur  Griech- 
ischen  Dialektologie,  p.  3;  Hanssen,  Philologischer  Anzeiger, 
XIII,  p.  580.  The  temptation  to  see  in  this  an  instance  of 
vacillation  between  etymological  and  recessive  accentuation  must 
be  resisted.  R.  Meister  (ibid.)  believes  that  Doric  y\avg  and  o-*a>p 
have  '  den  alterthiimlichen  accent  (i.  e.  no  doubt  what  we  here  call 
etymological  accent)  gegeniiber  der  im  aeolischen  dialekt  regel- 
m'assig,  im  ionisch-attischen  hier  und  da  eingetretenen  perispom- 
enierung  bewahrt.' 

We  must  consider,  however,  that  the  Doric  dialect  exhibits 
many  cases  of  suspended  perispasis,  as  in  nroxes,  TTTCOKU?,  Traces, 

(pares,   *A.\Kp.av   for    A\Kfj.av    (fr.   '  A\*cfiacoi/)  ,   irav    for  TTO.V,    in   the    aorist 

infinitives  o-rdo-cu,  Xuo-cu,  deipai  and  dp.vvai,  and  that  in  general  there 
is  to  be  observed  something  like  a  '  processive  '  reaction  against 
the  '  recessive  '  tendency,  the  latter  being  probably  Pan-Hellenic, 


1  Also  written  rav.    Cf.  also  rav  '  cv.  'Arr^/cwf  (Hesych.),  G.  Meyer2,  p.  382. 

2  Cf.  7T<y  •  TTOV.  bdev.  nodev,  &uptel$,  Hesych. 


15 

but  certainly  Attic-Ionic  and  especially  Aeolic.     This  is  exhibited 

in   Cases  like  dvdpwnoi,  yvvaiKai,  yvvaiKes,  opvtdes,  eVraaav,  e'Aa/3oi>,  in  the 

accentuation  of  navTwv  (Gottl.  246),  and  (ppurrjp  for  Attic  cppur^p,  etc. 
These  are  certainly  secondary  whether  they  mark  a  secondary 
phonetic  charige~oir  analogical  transformation  (dvdpwnoL  after  dvOpw- ! 

-    ,  r  ,    -\  i        T  rir 

Treat/,  dvOpamois,  etc. ',  (j)paTrjp  alter  Trarjjp).  1  preier  therefore  to 
regard  y\a\>£  and  o-/c%>  as  the  oldest  forms  on  Greek  ground,  and  to 
consider  the  coincidence  of  the  Doric  accentuation  yXavg,  a-nup  with 
the  etymological  accent  as  accidental. 

Hence  I  cannot  subscribe  to  Wheeler's  first  comparison  in  sup- 
port of  his  thesis  that  monosyllabic  words  have  retained  their 
etymological  accent  unchanged.  He  writes  Doric  TTWS-  (!)2~  Sk. 
pad-=.  I.  ^L.pots.  As  far  as  I  know  the  only  source  upon  which 
this  7ro>y  is  based  is  the  gloss  of  Hesychius :  VMS  '  TTOS.  vn6  Avpuwv. 
In  writing  Trews-  Wheeler  is  probably  guided — he  does  not  say  so — 
by  the  consideration  advanced  by  Joh.  Schmidt  in  KZ.  XXV  14. 
The  latter  judges  from  the  reported  oxytonesis  in  Doric  of  y\av£  and 
<TK<ap  that  Hesychius  has  misreported  this  accent,  as  he  frequently 
does.  Whether  this  be  so  or  not,  even  the  hypothetical  Doric 
*7ro>r  is  not  to  be  compared  directly  (as  Schmidt  and  Wheeler  do) 

1  R.  Meister  in  his  very  thoughtful  tract,  Zur  Griechischen  Dialektologie  (I. 
Bemerkungen  zur  dorischen  Accentuation)  endeavors  everywhere  to  explain 
these  cases  of  '  procession '  as  due  to  one  of  two  causes  :  either  some  analogy 
within  the  paradigm  of  the  word  in  question,  or  to  a  suspension  of  the  ^tpia^aotq 
KarrfvajnacfjiEvr]  of  the  other  dialects.  I  do  not  believe  that  he  is  on  the  right  track, 
as  he  does  not  point  out  any  reason  why  the  manifold  special  phenomena  of 
accent  in  Doric  agree  in  promoting  the  accent  towards  the  end  of  the  word. 
If  looked  at  in  detail,  special  causes  may  be  found  readily  enough  for  every 
instance  of  Doric  procession  :  avOpuiroi  might  well  be  accented  after  dvdpcjTruv ; 
Trrw/cef  after  Trrwf  ;  slidpov  after  kAafiopev ;  nav  might  have  preserved  the  old 
participial  accent,  as  in  Pan-Hellenic  GV/J.TTUV,  -xpoirav,  Trdfnruv  ;  fyparrjp  might 
be  oxytone  after  the  analogy  of  Trar^p  (Attic  ^parrjp') ;  ontip  and  y^avt;  might 
represent  instances  of  preserved  I.  E.  oxytonesis  in  Doric,  etc.,  etc.  Yet  each 
one  of  these  explanations — quite  reasonable  when  considered  singly — is 
rendered  improbable  because  they  all  operate  in  the  same  direction.  Why 
do  not  some  of  these  Doric  accentual  modifications  operate  in  the  other  direc- 
tion, i.  e.  ' recessively,'  if  they  are  merely  the  results  of  individual  effects? 
Unless  we  wish  to  burden  the  Dorians  with  an  apparently  Ideological  choice 
of  such  analogies  as  tend  to 'procession,'  we  must  assume  that  the  reported 
Doric  instances  of '  processive  '  accent — they  are  not  actually  quotable  in  the 
language — are  due  to  some  single  fact  in  accentual  phonetics  whose  scope  and 
cause  we  are  unable  to  determine  owing  to  ftie  deficiency  of  the  tradition.  We 
will  encounter  later  on  the  same  difficulty  in  Wheeler's  (and  Prellwitz's) 
attempts  to  explain  the  phenomena  of  Aeolic  accentuation. 

'JSee  p.  13,  as  also  Prellwitz,  loc.  cit.  p.  764. 


16 

with  Sk.pad,  I.  E.pots,  but  may  be  as  well  regarded  as  a  second- 
ary Doric  product  out  of  Pan-Hellenic  *7ra>s,  as  long  as  an  Attic- 
Ionic  TTO>S  is  not  discovered.1 

Tray  and  neuter  nav  are  of  especial  interest,  as  illustrating  the 
existence  of  recessive  accentuation  in  monosyllabic  nominal  stems. 
They  represent  an  I.  E.  non-thematic  participle  =  Sk.  *$vdnt-, 
I.  E.  Tcuni-.  This  conclusion  may  be  derived  from  Benfey's  old 
discovery  that  Sk.  gdqvant-,  for  *sd-gvant,  is  Greek  a-Travr-',  see 
Wurzellexicon  II  167  ;  Orient  und  Occident  I  573 ;  "  Das  indo- 
germanische  Thema  des  Zahlworts  'zwei'  ist  DU,"  Abhandlungen 
der  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  zu  Gottingen,  XXI  7.  The 
word  *nas  lost  its  connection  with  any  finite  verbal  system  very 
early :  hence  the  recessive  accentuation,  avoided  by  other  parti- 
ciples, lodged  within  a  finite  system,  forms  like  (pas,  /Say,  rXoy,  etc.; 
see  above.  On  the  other  hand  the  Attic  genitive  plur.  Trdj/rcoj/, 
dative  plur.  na<ri  are  still  participial  like  /3dW<»i>,  o-rai>ra>j/,  etc.  The 
neuter  participle  irav,  which  is  still  preserved  in  anav,  ird^Trav,  o-vp-nav 
and  npoTrav,  in  changing  to  irav,  adopted  both  the  quantity  and 
accentuation  of  Tra?.2 

I  have  left  out  of  question  the  perispasis  of  the  vocatives  of  long 
monosyllabic  nouns.  At  first  sight  this  is  one  of  the  strongest 
proofs  of  the  recessive  character  of  the  circumflex  in  cases  like  vavs, 
etc.  The  classical  example  Zeu,  circumflexed  vocative :  Zevs,  oxy- 
tone  nominative,  is  reflected  in  Vedic  dydus,  vocative  with  inde- 
pendent svarita :  dydiis,  nominative  with  udatta.  Each  pair  goes 
back  to  I.  E.  couplet  dieu(s),  vocative  with  I.  E.  independent 
svarita:  dieus,  nominative  with  acute  accent.  But  the  very  an- 
tiquity of  the  recessive  accent  in  the  vocative  makes  it  chronolog- 
ically unfit  as  an  argument  for  the  recessive  character  of  the  type 
The  recessive  accentuation  of  the  vocatives  Zfv,  a-wrep,  av- 
,  etc.,  is  proethnic;  that  of  vavs  at  best  Pan-Hellenic.  That 
does  not  exclude  the  fact  that  both  processes,  the  old  recession  of 
the  tone  in  the  vocatives  to  the  first  mora  (Zeu),  and  the  substitute 
for  enclisis  which  is  contained  in  the  last  resort  in  vavs,  have  finally 
worked  to  the  same  end,  but  the  recessive  accent  in  Ze£  does  not 
directly  prove  that  the  circumflex  in  vavs  is  also  recessive.  Cf. 
also  the  note  on  p.  17. 

1  Of  course  the  oxytonesis  of  Trove  proves  nothing  for  TTW^,  as  the  entire  end- 
ing (-oi>f)  is  secondary ;  cf.  above  s.  v.  Trovg,  and  G.  Meyer,2  §§77,  313.  The 
latter  also  writes  TTW^  in  both  places. 

27rav  is  explained  differently  by  J.  Schmidt,  KZ.  XXV  14.  rcav  occurs  even 
outside  of  composition  proper,  e.  g.  Find.  Ol.  2.  93. 


A  theory  which  ignores  in  its  consideration  of  long  monosyl- 
lables so  important  and  far-reaching  a  difference  as  that  exhibited 
in  the  collection  above  is  not  calculated  to  inspire  confidence. 
Wheeler  does  not  anywhere  allude  to  it ;  much  less  does  he  make 
an  effort  to  explain  it  away.  Though  such  an  attempt  seems  in/ 
any  case  an  after-thought,  I  have  nevertheless  surveyed  the  ground 
as  carefully  as  possible  for  some  expedient  by  which  the  circumflex 
accent  of  the  type  vav$  and  Aeolic  Zfvs,  7rro>£,  etc.,  might  be  ex- 
plained without  the  assumption  of  recessive  accent.  But  I  cannot 
say  that  I  have  succeeded  in  finding  one.  Hanssen  in  KZ.  XXVII 
612  f.,  by  employing  successfully  Leskien's  important  little  article 
'  Die  Quantitatsverschiedenheiten  im  Auslaut  des  Litauischen,' 
Archiv  fiir  slavische  Philologie,  1881,  Vol.  V,  p.  188  fg.,  has  proved 
that  a  kind  of  circumflex  accent1  existed  quite  extensively  on  final 
syllables  of  words  in  I.  E.  times,  but  his  proof  does  not  include  asingle 
case  of  a  monosyllabic  noun-stem,  nor  indeed  a  single  monosyllable. 
I  hold  myself  ready  to  accept  the  original  character  of  the  circum- 
flex wherever  there  is  good  ground  to  accept  it.  Hanssen  may 
perhaps  not  have  gone  far  enough  in  his  assumption,  or  at  least 
in  the  express  statement  of  such  accentuation,  inasmuch  as  he 
gives  only  examples  in  which  at  least  two  of  the  languages  com- 
pared (Greek,  Lithuanian,  and  Gothic)  testify  directly  to  the  exist- 

1  At  least  it  appears  as  the  ordinary  circumflex  in  Greek.  It  is  in  reality  that 
accentuation  of  a  long  syllable  in  which  the  summit-tone  either  permeates  the 
two  moras  of  which  the  syllable  consists,  or  in  which  there  is'double  summit 
accentuation  (Sievers'  Phonetik3,  203;  Bloomfield,  Historical  and  Critical 
Remarks,  27-8).  In  Lithuanian  grammar  this  mode  of  accentuation  is  called 
'  geschliffener  ton,'  after  Kurschat's  precedent.  '  Geschliffener  ton'  is  a  mis- 
nomer for  '  geschleifter  tcTn  '  (Leskien  orally:  Brugmann,  Grundriss,  I,  p.  562, 
suggests  '  schleifende '  sc.  betonung).  We  may  designate  in  English  this 
mode  of  accentuation  by  the  term  'drawled  tone,'  or 'slurring  tone'  (in  the 
acceptation  of  the  word  in  music).  This  I.  E.  drawled  tone  probably  has  a 
very  definite  scope  (see  Hanssen  above),  and  we  must  for  the  present  keep  it 
differentiated  from  the  genuine  I.  E.  circumflex  (svaritd)  of  Zev  —  Vedic  dyaus 
which  is  the  result  of  the  fusion  of  an  acute  plus  a  grave  (A).  In  the  ordinary 
recessive  and  contract  circumflex :  olda  —  o«Io,  rpei£  —  -pee^  (see  below)  we  must 
recognize  a  third  type  of  circumflex,  phonetically  very  similar  to  the  second, 
but  chronologically  very  different,  inasmuch  as  the  earliest  date  which  we  can 
assign  to  it  is  the  Pan-Hellenic  period.  Even  that  is  probably  too  early  for 
the  contract  circumflex;  see  G.  Meyer,2  p.  140.  Heterogeneous  accentual 
materials  of  the  Greek  have  become  fused  by  one  mode  of  designation.  In 
Sanskrit  the  first  two  kinds  are  designated  respectively  by  the  genuine  svarita 
and  the  riddtta ;  the  enclitic  s-uarita  (Whitney,  §85  fg.,  Historical  and  Critical 
Remarks,  p.  45)  generally  takes  the  sign  of  the  genuine  svarita. 


i8 

ence  of  the  circumflex.  For  Trodwv  =.  Sk.padam  we  may  suppose 
an  I.  E. pedom with  'drawled'  or  'slurring'  tone  (seethe  footnote 
on  p.  17),  from  the  testimony  of  KWWV  =  Lith.  szunu  =  I.  E.  Ttunvm 
(despite  pindm,  Atharva-Veda  III  9,  4).  Accordingly  it  seems  to 
me  not  unlikely  that  the  perispasis  of  long  monosyllabic  accusatives 
sg.  and  pi.  may  be  founded  upon  this  I.  E.  '  drawled '  ('  slurring ') 
tone,  although  the  nature  of  the  case  is  such  that  we  may  perhaps 
never  be  in  the  position  to  prove  it.  If  we  survey  the  list  given 
above :  sg.  z^,  D6ric  &av ;  Doric  puv,  Attic  fioZv,  ypavv,  vavv,  8pw, 

(TVV,   VV,   flVV)   \IV,    K.IV,   K\€lv,   6fVV  ',     pi.    DOHC   fi&S,   Attic   /3o£ij,    VOVS,  (TVS,   VS, 

dpvs,  pvs,  we  are  struck  by  the  solidarity  of  the  perispasis.  Yet 
much  of  it  is  palpably  secondary  :  Doric  Aav  has  a  Hyper-Doric  a, 
as  zfjv  =  I.  E.  diem  (leaving  the  accent  aside).  Attic  /Sow,  pi.  /3o€s ; 
vavv,  plur.  vavs ',  ypavv,  pi.  ypavs,  are  secondary  formations :  povv, 
vavv  and  ypavv  after  the  pattern  of  the  nominatives  sg.  ftovs,  vavs,  and 
ypavs ;  the  ace.  plural  fiovs,  vavs,  and  ypavs  in  their  turn  after  the  pattern 
of  the  ace.  sg.  povv,  vavv,  and  ypavv.  The  accusatives  p.vv  sg.,  pvs  pi. 
are  also  secondary  issue  of  the  nom.  pvs,  inasmuch  as  the  stem  is 
p,vs  =  I.  E.  mils- ;  the  proper  accusatives  are  */^o  for  */i{W  and  pW 
for*/iuCTaff  (cf.  G.  Meyer2,  pp.  321,  346).  K\£V  and  /cXels  are  pretty 
certainly  secondary  to  K\f1da,  Horn.  <\r)lda,  pi.  K\el8as.  Doric  6evv 
ace.  to  6evs  —  6e6s  can  only  be  the  product  of  a  later  propagation 
of  the  type,  as  the  word  is  certainly  originally  a  dissyllable.  I  do 
not  venture  to  decide  the  question  of  the  originality  of  the  accusa- 
tives o-vv,  vv,  8pvv,1  \lv,  K.IV]  pi.  avs,  vs,  8pvs.  G.  Meyer2,  §331  says: 
'  Den  i-  und  u-st'ammen  kommt  v  zu  :  idpiv,  noXiv,  KIV,  \lv,  o-vv,'  etc.  In 
§  361  he  places  the  ace.  plur.  ovs,  dpvs,  vs,  among  dissyllabic  v-stems 
like  yevvs,  V€KVS,  etc.  It  seems  from  one  point  of  view  that  we  ought 
to  expect  for  long  monosyllabic  stems  accusatives  of  the  type  sg. 
o<£pva2=  Sk.  bhnivam,  £atapathabrahmana  III  2.  i.  29,  and  Ho- 
meric ocppvas  =  Sk.  bkruvas.  Cf.  also  Lat.  suem.  On  the  other  hand 
Umbrian  sim  and  sif  point  to  vv  and  vs.  Be  this  as  it  may  there  re- 
main in  any  case  the  accusatives  z^v,  @S>v,  @S>s,  where  I  believe  that 
both  form  and  accent  are  original.  I  venture  the  following  recon- 
struction: zf)v  —  Vedic  dyam'=.  I.  E.  die(u}m ;  p&v  —  Ved'\cg-am  r= 
I.  E.  3<?(VJ7# ;  p&s  =1  Vedic  g&s  —  l.  E.  ^d(ujs ;  i.  e.  I  suppose  that  a 
slurring  or  drawled  mode  of  summit  accentuation  accompanied  the 
utterance  of  these  monosyllables.  Direct  unequivocal  proof  of  this 

1  There  is  in  the  Rig-Veda  no  single  case  of  an  ace.  sg.  in  -urn. 

2  The  form  occurs  late,  Oppian.  Kyn.  4.  405,  but  can  certainly  make  no  claim 
towards  direct  identification  with  Sk.  bhriivam  despite  the  formal  equality. 


19 

assumption  is  impossible,  as  'drawled'  tone  and  udatta  have  the 
same  designation  in  the  Veda  (see  the  footnote  on  p.  17),  but  the 
morphology  of  the  forms  renders  it  likely  enough.  This  is  the 
only  instance  in  which  the  circumflex  may  be  even  approximately 
proved  original  in  the  case  of  long  monosyllables,  and  even  if  we 
consider  it  not  impossible  that  it  may  yet  be  proved  proethnic  in 
other  monosyllabic  words,1  it  is  nevertheless  quite  incredible  that 
types  in  every  other  respect  so  perfectly  parallel  to  Zevs  =  dydiis 
as  vavs-ndiis,  and  fiovs-gdiis,  should  have  differed  in  this  singular 
manner  in  their  original  accentuation. 

I  have  thought  of  the  analogy  of  contract  forms.  So  fa  (gen. 
rjpos)  is  the  lyric  form  for  eap  (Alcman  24)  ;  Attic  ol$  =z  &'$•  for  of  is 
=  Lat.  ovis  •=.  Sk.  avis\  Attic  (p6ols  =  $0diV,  *  cake,  pill';  $£,{•  = 

j3oa|,  '  a  kind   of  fish  ';   o-rrjp,    (TT^TOS  ^^  ffre'ap,  oWaror,  '  tallow ';   wp  ^i: 

oap  'consort';  Kpfjs,  Doric  for  Kpeas  'flesh'  — Ved.  krdvis;  vovs  =:  • 
voos  'mind';  xv™s  (wovs,  Lob.  Par.  p.  93)  =.  xyoos  'surface';  Attic 
0povs  =•  Opoos  '  noise.'  Attic  x™s  is  declined  as  though  it  were 
a  monosyllabic  stem  (gen.  xoo/ff>  dat.  ^ot,  ace.  plur.  ^ovs ;  cf.  /Sons-, 
jSot,  etc.),  yet  it  is  in  reality  a  dissyllabic  stem  like  <pop6s  (xoFos,  XQOS, 
contracted  x°^0  5  third  declension  forms  of  povs  —  pofos  also  occur, 
e.  g.  genitive  po6$  like  ^ody ;  see  Lob.  Phryn.  454. 

The  epic  word  x^p,  Krjpos  'heart'  is  explained  by  Gottling,  p. 425, 
Leo.  Meyer  KZ.  V  69 ;  Misteli,  Uber  griechische  Betonung,  p.  118, 
as  contracted  from  the  later  Ktap  (tragic,  lyric),  in  the  same  way  as 
^>,  rjp°s  fr°m  «*/>•  Curtius,  Etymologic6,  p.  143,  points  out  the 
independent  character  of  the  stem  (*KJ?p§?),  and  Brugmann,  in 
Curtius's  Studien  IX  296,  note,  explains  the  accent  as  an  imitation 
of  the  contract  accent  of  ^>,  rjpos.  The  persistence  of  the  cir- 
cumflex in  the  declension  of  the  word  renders  this  explanation 
fairly  plausible  (gen.  Kijpos,  dat.  Krjpi) ;  cf.  also  Wackernagel  in  KZ. 
XXV  280. 

The  explanation  of  Attic  <ps>s  as  equal  to  Homeric,  etc.,  <pdo$  is 
the  current  one;  see  e.  g.  Brugmann  in  Curtius'  Stud.  IV  173; 
G.  Meyer2,  p.  326.  No  one  as  far  as  I  know  has,  however,  offered 
any  explanation  which  bridges  over  the  difference  in  the  stems  of 
the  two  words:  ^a/W-  but  (par-.  The  stem  $o>r-  seems  to  me 
better  comparable  with  Vedic  bhds,  neuter  in  the  oldest  language, 
the  T  being  '  adscititious '  (Brugmann,  ibid.) ;  cf.  (pao-cpopos  and 
bhds-kara  '  shining.'  But  the  circumflex  may  be  due  to  the  fact 

1  The  regularity  with  which  long  monosyllabic  neuters  are  circumflected  is 
worthy  of  attention  ;  Chandler  §563  and  above. 


20 


k" 


fn 


that  the  form  was  felt  to  be  associated  with  faios  as  its  contract 
form. 

The  difference  between  ef?  (Doric  fc :  Heraclean  tablets  i,  136) 
and  ovdeis,  fj,r]8fLs  (lacon.  ovfys  IA.  79,  4)  is  as  yet  unexplained ;  cf. 
Gottling,  246;  Misteli  118;  Hanssen,  Philologischer  Anzeiger 
XIII,  p.  580.  The  evidence  of  Attic  TOVS  =•  Kretic  TOW,  etc.,  points 
to  the  fact  that  the  oxytone  accent  is  the  fundamental  one,  and  that 
the  perispasis  of  efs-  is  secondary.  I  venture  to  propose  the  analogy 
of  the  contract  circumflex  of  rpels  (Homeric  and  Attic)  =  rpces- 
(Inscr.  of  Gortyna,  9,  48)  —  Sk.  trdyas  =  I.  E.  treies.  The  vig- 
orous analogical  influence  of  numerals  upon  one  another  has  long 
been  noticed ;  see  Osthoff,  Morphologische  Untersuchungen  I  92 
fg. ;  Baunack,  KZ.  XXV  225  fg.  One  can  understand  easily  how 
*€i?  might  be  influenced  by  rpeis,  so  as  to  become  a?,  while  ovdeis, 
firjdfis  would  be  preserved  from  this  contamination  by  being  '  out 
of  the  count/  and  possibly  by  the  blurred  consciousness  of  the 
origin  of  the  words. 

The  circumflex  of  p.va  may  possibly  be  due  to  its  assumed  deri- 
vation as  a  contract  form  from  Ionic  /Wa  (Hdt.  2,  180)  ;  fj.vd  is 
probably  more  original  than  /uWa.  It  is  Hebrew-Phoenician  nw  ; 
cf.  Lat.  mina,  Sk.  mana  (also  a  loan-word) ;  cf.  Zimmer,  Altin- 
disches  Leben,  p.  50. 

The  circumflexed  form  e* '  thou  art '  I  have  explained  previously 
in  a  totally  different  connection  and  from  a  different  point  of  view, 
as  owing  its  orthotonesis — in  distinction  from  the  enclisis  of «/u» 
,  etc. — to  the  analogy  of  verbal  forms  with  the  circumflex  due 
to  contraction :  see  Historical  and  Critical  Remarks,  p.  59  (39). 
I  see  no  reason  for  retracting  this  view,  and  I  am  not  aware  that 
any  authority  has  objected  to  it,  or  that  a  more  plausible  one  has 
been  advanced  hitherto.1 

Much  of  the  perispasis  of  long  monosyllables  in  Attic-Ionic  may 
be  in  this  way  ultimately  exhibited   as   secondary.     The  small 
investigation  given  above  may  serve  rather  as  a  guide  in  the  matter, 
than  lay  claim  to  an  exhaustive  examination  of  the  possibilities  in 
that  direction.     Yet  it  seems  to  me  that  no  one  will  be  found  will- 
ing to  undertake  the  thankless  task  of  explaining  away  all  the 
j  instances  of  the  circumflex  on  long  monosyllables  recounted  above, 
K  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  that  retraction  of  the  accent  which  is 
\  an  infallible  law  in  the  monosyllabic  forms  of  the  finite  verb. 


1  Osthoff 's  explanation  of  el,  as  equal  to  ef  for  I.  E.  esl,  with  'nehentonig- 
tieftonigem  vocalismus  des  personal-suffixes '  rests  upon  too  slender  a  basis  of 
fact  to  inspire  confidence.  See  Zur  Geschichte  des  Perfects,  p.  18,  note. 


21 

And  even  the  sturdiest  determination  in  that  direction  would  be 
of  no  avail  on  account  of  the  Aeolic  dialect.  Wheeler  has  taken 
no  account  of  the  constant  perispasis  of  long  monosyllables  in 
Aeolic,  ZeCv,  7rr<»£,  xw  fyw^  etc->  etc. :  we  may  assume  that  he  has 
consistently  placed  circumflex  and  acute  upon  the  same  level  here 
as  throughout  his  work.  Prellwitz,  in  his  review,  loc.  cit.  p.  757, 
recognizes  this  deficiency  and  proceeds  to  remedy  it.  But  his 
processes  do  not  in  my  opinion  redound  to  the  advantage  of  the 
cause.  Prellwitz  would  explain  the  perispasis  of  Zevs  and  TJTCO£  as 
due  to  the  analogy  of  z/?i/,  Zev,  nTwua.  This  is  well  possible  when 
taken  by  itself:  it  would  be  simple  paradigmatic  analogy.  If  we 
consider,  however,  that  Aeolic  vaos,  j/ai'~  non- Aeolic  vaos,  vat;  ft6os, 
—  non-Aeol.  /Sods-,  KWOS,  furthermore  if  we  consider  Aeolic 
,  a6(f)os,  Trorapos,  etc.,  the  fallacy  of  the  assumption  of  such 
analogy  becomes  apparent.  It  is  of  the  same  sort  as  that  criticized 
above  in  R.  Meister's  explanation  of  suspended  perispasis  in 
Doric :  there  is  no  reason  provided  for  the  infallible  motion  of 
these  supposed  analogies  in  one  direction.  I  shall  return  to  this 
point  more  fully  later  on  in  connection  with  Wheeler's  explanation 
of  the  accent  of  Aeolic  Ovpos  and  o-d^os.  I  fail  to  see  how  the 
assumption  can  be  avoided,  that  certain  accentual  types,  namely 
the  '  recessive '  ones,  have  propagated  themselves  in  Aeolic  with- 
out reference  to  the  function  of  the  forms  involved. 

Nor  will  it  do  to  assume  that  the  difference  between  acute  and 
circumflex  became  indistinguishable  at  a  period  so  early  that  the 
Homeric  difference  between  Zeus  and  vavs  may  be  accounted  as  non- 
significant. Deutschmann,  in  his  treatise  De  poe'sis  Graecorum 
rhythmicae  primordiis,  Malmedy,  1883,  p.  3,  assumes  this  state  of 
things  for  the  first  century  A.  D.,  but  his  assumption  is  fitly 
refuted  by  Hanssen  in  the  Phil.  Anz.  XIII,  p.  422.  As  late  as 
Babrius  the  difference  between  acute  and  circumflex  must  have 
existed,  for  he  categorizes  words  like  Kdpva>  and  rouro  together,  and 
differentiates  KO.\LV<*  and  p^rrjp ;  cf.  Hanssen,  Rheinisches  Museum 
XXXVIII,  p.  239  fg.  He  could  not  have  put  the  accentuation  of 
Kd/ifo)  and  roOro  upon  the  same  level  without  recognizing  that  the 
fundamental  difference  between  acute  and  circumflex  is  rather  a 
topical  than  a  qualitative  one.  The  acute  accent  on  a  long  syllable 
means  in  reality  that  the  second  mora  has  the  acute,  the  first  one 
being  grave;  /^r;/p  — /^eeV/jp ;  the  circumflex  on  a  long  syllable 
means  the  accentuation  of  the  first  mora ;  TO^TO  =  rdvro.  Hanssen, 
Phil.  Anz.  XIII,  p.  422,  without  offering  anything  new,  well  describes 


ll 


22 

the  ordinary  (not  'drawled')  circumflex  as  follows:  ' There  is  in 
fact  in  Greek  but  one  {grammatical}  accent,  the  acute  ;  but  this  can 
Jill  but  one  mora.  Short  syllables  therefore  admit  of  but  one  kind  of 
accentuation :  their  vowel  carries  the  acute  ;  syllables  with  a  short 
vowel,  long  by  position,  also  admit  of  only  one  kind  of  accentu- 
ation :  their  vowel  bears  the  acute,  they  also  have  the  tone  on  the 
first  mora;  syllables  containing  a  long  vowel  (or  a  diphthong) 
admit  of  a  twofold  method  of  accentuation ;  the  acute  may  stand 
on  the  first  mora  of  the  vowel  (circumflex),  or  the  acute  may  stand 
on  the  second  mora  of  the  vowel  (acute  on  a  long  syllable).  The 
designation  of  accent  is  deficient  in  marking  an  acute  upon  a  short 
vowel  and  an  acute  upon  the  second  mora  of  a  long  vowel  by  the 
same  sign,  and  it  is  an  unlucky  circumstance  that  a  special  name 
and  a  special  mark  was  not  constructed  for  the  acute  on  a  long 
syllable,  but  for  the  circumflex.  In  reality  the  words  a\s  and  irovs, 
which  carry  the  same  accent-mark,  are  not  accented  alike,  and 
they  are  not  both  accented  differently  from  ovs,  but  a\s  and  ovs  are 
accented  alike  on  the  first  mora,  while  TTOVS  is  accented  on  the 
second  mora.  The  difference  between  acute  and  circumflex  in  all 
probability  was  given  up  along  with  the  differentiation  of  short  and 
long  vowels,  at  a  time  when  the  difference  in  the  pronunciation  of  o 
and  o>  was  given  up  ;  at  that  time  the  difference  in  the  accentuation 
of  r6,  rw,  and  ro>  was  no  longer  felt.' 

This  applied  to  vavs  and  Ztvs  means  that  the  accent  of  vavs  is  vdi>s, 

that  of  Zeus-  is  Zevs. 

The  difference  is  a  topical  one,  not  one  of  quality  only,  and  our 
previous  considerations  have  made  it  probable  that  no  other  source 
than  the  recessive  accent  of  the  formally  corresponding  verbal 
forms  will  be  found  for  accent  of  vavs,  which  deviates  from  the  I.  E. 
ndiis.  The  sporadic  or  unsettled  character  of  the  recession  in  the 
noun-types  (vavs,  pous  but  Zeus,  /3a?)  is,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  well  ex- 
plained by  the  statements  on  pages  30,  50,  57  and  62  of  my 
treatise,  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  paper.  The  recessive 
accent  in  the  verbal  forms  is  enclisis,  or  rather  a  substitute  for  it, 
therefore  a  grammatical  quality,  which  covers  the  entire  ground ; 
in  the  noun  it  is  secondary,  no  doubt  analogical,  apparently  on  the 
way  towards  absorbing  it.  This  process  of  absorption  is  complete 
in  the  Aeolic  dialect.  The  manner  in  which  this  analogy  has 
operated  I  shall  endeavor  to  delineate  below. 

The  considerations  given  thus  far  are  in  themselves  quite  suffi- 
cient to  unsettle  one's  belief  in  Wheeler's  hypothesis,  with  its 


23 

fundamental  idea  of  a  subsidiary  tone.  In  his  assumption  of  a 
subsidiary  tone  on  the  third  or  fourth  inora  from  the  end,  there  is 
no  provision  made  for  the  change  from  original  */3^(Y)  i.  e.  */3ee 
•=.  Vedic  gat,  to  ffi,  i.  e.  *£«  for  j.  */3q ;  from  original  *vavs,  i.  e.  *i/aus- 
to  vavs,  i.  e.  vdvs.  Here  it  would  be  necessary  to  assume  a  subsidiary 
tone  on  the  second  mora  from  the  end.  Will  any  one  be  found 
willing  to  believe  that  a  single  long  syllable  was  burdened  with  a  - 
summit  tone  and  a  subsidiary  tone,  and  that  at  a  certain  time,  to 
use  Wheeler's  own  terminology,  'trat  ein  Schwanken  ein,  das 
Spater  zu  gunsten  einer  der  beiden  Accentuation  ausfallt '  ? 

I  believe  that  enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  that  part  of 
Wheeler's  first  thesis  which  refers  to  monosyllables  is  not  tenable. 
Still  less  do  I  find  myself  in  the  position  to  adhere  to  the  second 
part  of  it.  The  claim  that  dissyllabic  forms  with  short  final  syllable 
retain  the  inherited  (I.  E.)  accent  seems  to  me  quite  groundless. 

At  all  times  comparisons  like  the  following  have  been  considered 
legitimate :  ol8a,  olo-da,  oiSe  =  Ved.  veda,  vtftha,  veda  •=.  I.  E. 
uoidm  (?),  uoistha,  uoide  ;  ei/u,  «n  =  Ved.  e'mi,  eti—  I.  E.  Simi, 
e'iti ;  r,a  =  Vedic  asa  =  I.  E.  ism  (?),  perfect  ind.  act.  first  sing.  ; 
^e  (v)  —  Vedic  asa,  I.  E.  ese,  perfect  third  sing. ;  dual  and  plural 
forms  of  the  imperfect  of  the  copula:  ^OTOI/,  ^i«/,  ^ore  =  Vedic 
astaniy  asma,  asta  ;  /terrai  =.  Vedic  gete ;  ^o-rai  =  Vedic  aste. 

Comparative  grammarians  are  usually  pleased  to  speak  of  such 
cases  as  being  equal  sound  for  sound.  But  is  it  true  that  any 
respectable  authority  has  ever  ignored  the  thoroughgoing  differ- 
ence in  the  accent  ?  There  is  absolutely  no  reason  for  doubting 
that  the  Vedic  udatta  of  veday  e'mi,  etc.,  represents  the  I.  E.  acute 
or  *  cut '  ('  gestossen ')  tone  on  the  second  mora  of  the  first  syllable,  i 
To  my  knowledge  no  one  has  ever  hinted  at  a  similar  accentual, 
condition  in  the  cases  above  (foiSe,  et/u,  etc.).  The  circumflex  on 
verbal  forms  of  this  type:  r  w,  i.  e.  dissyllabic  trochaic  forms, 
has  always  been  understood  to  be  '  recessive,'  utterly  independent 
of  any  accentuation  prior  to  Greek  period,  olda  =.  Vedic  veda  is 
'  recessive  '  precisely  in  the  same  sense  as  /3J/  =  Vedic  gat.  No 
one  will  be  found  so  bold  as  to  assume  a  proethnic  '  slurring '  tone 
or  a  proethnic  svarita  (cf.  p.  17,  note)  for  all  dissyllabic  trochaic 
verbal  forms,  whatever  their  connection.  The  very  fact  that  the 
Trept'o-Trao-ts  in  such  cases  is  Kar^vayKua-pevr]  shows  that  all  etymological 
accentuation  is  superseded  by  the  '  recessive  '  law. 

In  the  case  of  long  monosyllables,  the  verb  is  recessive,  without 
exception :  the  noun,  according  to  our  discussion  above,  has 


i 


followed  the  verb  only  to  a  certain  extent.  On  the  other  hand  the 
entire  body  of  trochaic  dissyllables  :  verbs,  nouns,  pronouns  and 
other  parts  of  speech  are  properispomena,1  aside  from  the  Doric 

instances  like  7n-&>Kes,  irTUKas,  Traides,  (frwTes,  orao-ai,  \vo-ai,  etc.,  in  which 

the  perispasis  is  suspended.  I  have  indicated  above  that  these 
cases  are  in  my  opinion  due  to  a  genuine  '  processive  '  reaction 
against  the  recessive  tendency,  and  that  Meister  is  of  a  different 
opinion.  Whatever  their  explanation  may  be  —  none  that  is  abso- 
lutely convincing  has  to  my  knowledge  been  advanced  —  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  they  rest  almost  entirely  upon  reports  of 
native  grammarians,  and  not  upon  good  '  quotable  '  material. 
The  reported  cases  of  suspended  perispasis  in  trochaic  dissyllables 
are  no  way  fit  for  testimony  against  the  assumption  that  this  peri- 
spasis is  Pan-Hellenic,  and  practically  without  exception. 

That  the  circumflex  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  monosyllabic 
perispomena,  indicates  a  difference  of  position,  as  well  as  one  of 
quality,  we  may  learn,  aside  from  the  general  description  of  the 
value  of  the  circumflex  given  above,  from  a  single  example  of  the 
type  —  w,  namely  01*01  'houses,'  if  we  compare  it  with  01*01  'at 
home.'  It  has  been  known  for  a  long  time  that  the  syllable  -KOI 
of  olKot  counted  for  one  mora  and  that  the  accent  was  therefore 
driven  forward  to  the  first  mora  of  ol-  (i.  e.  01*01  =.  OJKOI),  while  in 
oucoi  the  second  syllable  counted  for  two  moras,  and  the  summit 
tone  was  therefore  placed  upon  the  second  mora  of  ol-  (i.  e.  oi'/coi  — 
OIKOI).  Misteli,  Ueber  griechische  Betonung,  p.  128,  came  very 
near  to  an  explanation  of  this  difference  in  his  sentence  :  '  Wenn 
OIKOI  von  01*01  absticht  und  at  ot  des  Optativs  iiberall  seine  Lange 
wahrt,  so  ist  im  ersten  Falle  i  eigentlich  Casussuffix  des  Locativs, 
das  mit  dem  Stammvocale  o  regelrecht  zusammengezogen  wurde, 
und  die  Folge  davon  ist  eben  die  Lange,  wahrend  im  Nomin.  Plur. 
jedenfalls  die  Rede  nicht  von  Zusammenziehung  sein  kann,  so 
wenig  als  beim  altindischen  Pronominalausgang  z.  B.  #=roi,j// 

=  01  U.  S.  W.' 

Leskien,  in  the  article  quoted  above,  broke  the  way  toward  a 
full  explanation  of  this  extraordinary  difference  by  showing  that 


Joh.  Alexandr.,  p.  5,  17:  Trdaa  tyvati  [ncmpa  Trpo  j3pa^eiaf  XIJKTIKJJC,  £<]>' 

rdvov,  TcepiaTrarat  ;  Gottling,  p.  42.  So  unfailing  is  this  law  that  forms 
which  really  ought  to  have  an  etymological  accent  upon  the  second  mora  of 
the  first  syllable  are  absorbed  by  the  type  —  ^.  So  Sovvai  ~  *6ofevai  —  Vedic 
ddvdne  (*(^ofsvai  is  hypothetical  because  Cypr.  dofevac  has  no  accent)  ; 
for  irafid^  ace.  to  Meister,  Zur  Gr.  Dial.,  p.  2,  cf.  above,  p.  n,  etc. 


25 

the  Lithuanian  exhibited  two  kinds  of  syllable-tone  (in  distinction 
from  word-tone):  'cut'  tone  ('gestossener'  accent)  and  'drawled' 
tone  ('  geschliffener  '  accent)  ;  cf.  the  footnote  on  p.  17.  Syllables 
which  have  the  summit  tone,  as  well  as  syllables  without 
the  summit  tone  (grave  syllables),  exhibit  this  difference  in  the 
different  treatment  of  the  vowels.  Hanssen  in  KZ.  XXVII  612 
fg.  successfully  applied  Leskien's  discovery  to  Greek.  Accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  ot  in  a  final  grave  syllable  is  long  if  the  same 
syllable  with  the  summit  tone  has  the  circumflex  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  same  syllable  with  the  summit  tone  has  the  acute,  ; 
then  it  has  the  value  of  a  short  syllable.  If  we  compare  the 
two  nominatives  plural  01*01  and  KaXoi  with  the  two  locatives 
singular  oiW  and  'lo-fycot,  we  can  see  that  the  syllable  01  of 
OIKOI  is  counted  short  because  it  would  have  the  acute  when 
accented  (cf.  *aXoi),  while  the  01  of  o'Uoi  is  counted  long,  because  it 
would  be  circumflexed  if  it  were  accented  (cf.  'io-0/uor).  We  may 
say  that  the  second  syllable  of  01*01  has  the  *  sub-acute  '  accent,  or 
'  sub-cut  '  tone,  while  the  second  syllable  of  O'LKOL  has  the  '  sub- 
circumflex'  or  'sub-drawled'  tone.  Cf.  also  Brugmann,  Grundriss 

!»  PP-  533,  539- 

Nothing  could  show  more  directly  the  fact  that  the  circumflex 
of  oucot  really  represents  an  acute  on  the  first  mora  of/cot  =  dl/coi,  the 
acute  of  OIKOI  an  acute  on  the  second  mora  :  the  result  arrived  at 
independently  in  the  case  of  the  long  monosyllables  is  repeated 
here  from  a  new  point  of  view  for  trochaic  dissyllables  ;  the  circum- 
flex of  these  represents  a  summit  accentuation  of  the  first  mora.  We  fl  /  jJ 
must  therefore  pronounce  as  incorrect  the  following  of  Wheeler's  \  _ 

comparisons  (p.  20  fg.)  as  far  as  the  accent  is  concerned:  90?  ~     flt-^  ^- 
Sk.  yavat  ;  rfjos  =  Sk.  tavat  ;  aWos  —  Sk.  e'dhas  ;  ei6\>y  =  Sk.  vedas  ; 
*avyos   (from   tpiawyqi)  =  Sk.   QJ€LS\   irlos  =  Sk.  pivas  ;   olfjios  —  Sk. 


t 

emas\  oi/uos-  =•  Sk.  dhsas  ;  d5>ns  (Hesych.)  z=Sk.  dati-\  d^a  =  Sk.  ?      t      i^J 

daman-  ;  ff/xa  r=  Sk.  vdsman-  ;  0v/xa  =  Sk.  b  human-  ;  x.^^a  (xf^^a  ^s  F  ( 

misprinted)  =  Sk.  homan-  ;  olpa  zn  Sk.  e'man-  ;  ^et/ua  :  Sk.  adverbial 


locative  heman  ;  olQap  :  Sk.  udhar,  etc. 

One  may  be  fairly  surprised  that  Wheeler  discriminated  against 
these  forms  and  shut  them  out  from  his  theory  of  a  secondary 
accent.  They  could  have  been  well  enough  provided  for  under  its 
shelter.  He  allows  the  secondary  accent  in  iambic  dissyllables 
(three  moras)  :  why  should  it  not  also  have  developed  upon  trochaic 
dissyllables  (of  the  same  number  of  moras)?  On  p.  16  he  says: 
1  The  only  cases  of  monosyllabic  stems  like  novs,  nodus,  cty,  OTTOS,  K.T.A. 


26 

which  were  fit  to  receive  the  subsidiary  tone  were  the  genitives 
and  datives  plur.,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  accentual  ex- 
ceptions which  are  almost  unanimously  reported  by  the  gram- 
marians appeared  in  just  these  cases  (naidcov,  etc.).'  It  seems 
unlikely  that  he,  whose  methods  are  most  rigorous,  should  have 
allowed  himself  to  override  such  considerations,  because  the  as- 
sumption of  recessively  accented  trochaic  dissyllables  would  intro- 
duce exceptions  into  almost  all  his  categories  of  dissyllabic  words, 
and  thus  prevent  the  clean-cut  arrangement  of  the  words  under 
his  category  I.  Was  he  prevented  from  making  the  assumption 
of  a  secondary  accent  by  the  unlikely  result :  a  principal  and  a 
secondary  accent  upon  the  same  syllable,  <£u/«i,  i.  e.  <j)fv^a  with  a 
secondary  accent  developed  upon  the  first  v  (cf.  above)?  His 
attitude  here  again  seems  to  me,  however,  best  described  by  saying 
that  he  has  not  regarded  the  difference  between  circumflex  and 
acute  as  an  expression  of  topical  difference  any  more  here  than 
above  in  the  case  of  long  monosyllables. 

We  may,  I  think,  take  this  for  granted  from  the  way  in  which 
he  explains  certain  points  in  the  recessive  accentuation  of  the 
Aeolic  (Lesbian). 

It  has  long  been  customary  to  regard  the  Aeolic  accentuation  as 
an  extreme  carrying  out  of  the  recessive  tendency,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  number  of  moras  involved  in  a  given  word.  Excepting 
a  few  uninflected,  therefore  solitary  words,  the  prepositions  and 
conjunctions  dvd,  Kara,  8id,  /zera,  ardp,  avrdp,  for  whose  oxytonesis 
there  is  good  grammatical  authority — they  have  the  secondary 
proclitic  accent — the  whole  mass  of  word-material  has  assumed 
the  recessive  accentuation,  exactly  as  it  holds  in  the  Pan-Hellenic 
personal  forms  of  the  verb.  Wheeler,  p.  24,  attempts  to  show  that 
his  theory  of  a  middle  tone  needs  to  be  applied  also  when  one  is 
face  to  face  with  the  over-emphatic  application  of  the  recessive 
principle  in  the  Aeolic.  The  Aeolic  declension  of  Attic  0vp.6s 
is  0vp.os,  BtfjLoi  (dupoio),  Buna,  GCfjiov,  dupe.  He  is  not  willing  to 
recognize  independent  recession  in  every  case,  but  applies  his 
theory  rigorously.  Accordingly  it  is  possible  that  the  genitive 
and  dative  should  have  changed  their  accent,  because  the  former 
contained  three  syllables  and  the  latter  is  spondaic :  there  was 
room  for  the  secondary  accent.  On  the  other  hand,  6vp.os  and 
6vfj.ov  must  have  obtained  their  accent  analogically  from  such  forms 
as  BifjiU)  (!).  But  if  the  process  is  simply  analogical,  why  not  Qvpos 
and  dt^ov  ?  When  Meister,  Zur  griechischen  Dialektologie,  makes 


27 


the  assumption  that  Doric  TTTUKCS,  yW*«-,  etc.,  owe  their  acute  to 
the  analogy  of  7rro>£,  yuwj,  etc.,  the  assumption  of  analogy,  whether 
made  correctly  or  not,  is  a  reasonable  one.  But  if  6i>p.&  shall  affect 
forms  like  0i>p6s,  Ovpov  by  '  blind  analogy,'  why  the  change  to  the 
circumflex?  Thence  I  conclude  that  Wheeler  did  not  bear  in 
mind  the  difference  expressed  by  circumflex  when  compared  with 
acute  :  neither  the  topical  difference  nor  the  difference  in  quality. 
Brugmann,  who  has  adopted  for  his  '  Grundriss  '  Wheeler's 
theory  without  expressed  reserve,  treats  the  matter  corresponding 
to  Wheeler's  first  thesis  in  §676,  i.  Do  I  err  in  believing  that 
although  he  adopts  this  thesis  in  his  statement,  he  '  hedges  '  in 
the  choice  of  his  examples?  The  paragraph  in  question  is  as 
follows:  'Zweisilbige  Worter  mit  kurzer  Endsilbe  lagen  ausser- 
halb  der  Wirksamkeit  des  Secundaraccentes  und  hielten  im  allge- 
meinen  den  ererbten  Worton  fest.  7r68a  Tro'Sey,  7ro86s  noo-l  :  &\padam 
padas,  padds,  patsii.  rpcls  aus  *Tpe(t)«,  rpia-i  :  trdyas  trisii,  trevre 
#e/ca,  eTrrd:  pdilca  ddgct  saptd.  Trepi:  pdri.  apKros:  rksas,  etc. 
s  :  jdmbhas.  ITTTTOS  :  dgvas.  dyos  :  ajds.  6pB6s  :  urdkvds. 
:  midhdm.  Qvpos  :  dkumds.  ayvos  :  yajnds.  K\VTOS  :  grutds. 
os  :  jndtds.  fiapvs  :  gunis.  f)8vs  :  svddiis.  peQv  :  mddhu.  ytcpos  : 
ndbhas.  avdos  :  dndhas.  e!)ua  :  vdsma.  With  the  exception  of  the 
single  example  ef/^a  :  vdsma,  there  is  no  word  with  a  circumflex 
mentioned  in  the  passage,  and  Brugmann  may  have  admitted 
fljj.0.  because  the  diphthong  is  not  Pan-Hellenic  (Aeolic  e/^a  and 

yeor/Ltara  iz:  */reo-/zara,    Doric  yjj/m,    yecrrpa  .  crroX^,    Hesych.)        It   does 

not  seem  to  me  to  be  without  significance  that  Brugmann  has 
failed  to  put  his  signature  to  accentual  equations  like  efSoy  — 
ve'das,  etc.,  even  while  adopting  the  theory  which  would  render 
them  legitimate. 

I  believe  that  I  have  thus  far  shown  that  two  types  of  mono- 
syllabic and  dissyllabic  words  do  not  respond  to  Wheeler's  theory, 
inasmuch  as  their  explanation  from  his  own  point  of  view  demands 
the  assumption  of  secondary  accent  under  circumstances  not  pro- 
vided for  by  the  theory,  and  under  circumstances  intrinsically 
thoroughly  improbable.  Neither  can  I  give  in  my  adhesion  to 
that  part  of  thesis  I  which  is  left  after  deducting  the  long  mono- 
syllables and  the  trochaic  dissyllables,  namely  the  pyrrhic  dissyl- 
lables. To  begin  with,  one  will  naturally  be  less  trustful  towards 
Wheeler's  attempt  to  derive  the  recessive  accent  on  pyrrhic  dis- 
syllables of  Aeolic  words,  by  the  analogy  of  forms  within  the  same 
paradigm,  after  the  fallacy  of  such  a  derivation  of  forms  like 


28 

BofAos,  Qupov  has  been  exhibited  above.  One  naturally  asks  here  as 
several  times  before :  Why  this  untiring  consistency  in  these  cases 
of '  blind  analogy ';  why  is  the  tendency  always  forward,  why  not 
sometimes  the  other  way  ?  He  explains  the  change  from  <ro(f)6s  to 
o-o^os-  as  follows  (p.  24) :  '  Obwohl  der  Nominativ  eines  zweisilbigen 
Nomens  dem  secundiiren  Accent  nicht  zuganglich  sein  mag,  werden 
doch  einige  der  andern  Casusformen  es  immer  sein  konnen ;  z.  B. 
Cronos-  aber  o-bfov  (with  secondary  accent).  Und  die  Neigung  zur 
Gleichmassigkeit  in  der  Flexion  vermochte  dann  wohl  den  einmal 
in  die  iambischen  oder  spondaischen  Formen  aufgenommenen 
recessiven  Accent  durch  Analogic  auf  die  trochaischen  resp.  pyr- 
rhichischen  hiniiber  zu  fiihren.  Solches  war  durchweg  der  Fall 
im  aeolischen  (lesb.)  Dialekte.'  But  we  may  fairly  ask  :  Why  did 
not  the  '  Neigung  zur  Gleichmassigkeit,'  if  untrammelled  by  any 
other  tendency,  occasionally  equalize  in  the  other  direction,  if  the 
recession  of  the  accent  is  due  simply  to  paradigmatic  analogy,  and 
not  to  some  other  cause  ?  Wheeler  assumes  in  the  fourth  category 
(his  No.  V)  that  a  vacillation  between  the  etymological  and  reces- 
sive accentuation  took  place  in  the  case  when  the  etymological 
or  inherited  accent  was  nearer  to  the  end  of  the  word  than  the 
recessive  accent.  What  is  it  that  deprived  the  Aeolic  from  the 
benefit  of  this  choice?  Wackernagel,  in  his  review,  recognized 
the  improbability  of  this  view,  without  refuting  it :  '  Wol  aber  hatte 
er  die  Consequenzen  seines  Satzes,  dass  die  Tieftonigkeit  der 
aeolischen  Mundart  unmittelbar  mit  dem  Secundaraccente  zu- 
sammenhange,  besser  erwagen  sollen.  Der  Secundaraccent  ist  den 
zweisilbigen  Wortern  trochaischer  und  pyrrhichischer  Messung 
fremd,  und  doch  sind  diese  im  aeolischen  ebenso  barytonetisch 
als  die  andern.  Die  par  Ausnahmen  von  der  Barytonese  auf  die 
sich  der  Verfasser  S.  25  beruft  (avd,  ardp  u.  s.  w.)  sind  lauter  Worter 
mit  dem  von  ihm  auch  sonst  anerkannten  proklitischen  Accent  auf 
der  Endsilbe.'  (Deutsche  Literaturzeitung  1886,  Nr.  7,  Col.  221.) 
If  the  genuine  retraction  of  the  accent  in  Aeolic  pyrrhic  dissyl- 
lables is  due  to  the  recessive  '  principle,'  then  the  existence  of  the 
same  in  the  other  dialects  is  a  priori  probable,  for  the  Aeolic  does 
not  anywhere  do  more  than  exaggerate  the  accentual  facts  of  the 
sister-dialects.  As  far  as  oxytone  pyrrhic  dissyllables  are  con- 
cerned they  do  indeed  largely  retain  their  accent,  but  so  do  all 
kinds  of  I.  E.  oxytones  which  are  not  finite  verbal  forms.  That  is 
the  one  fortress  which  has  never  been  scaled  by  the  enclitic 
accentuation :  it  is  '  the  last  ditch.'  But  exceptions  to  the  retention 


29 

of  this  oxytonesis  are  not  wanting  in  the  language  any  more  in  the 
case  of  the  pyrrhic  oxytone  type  (^  6)  than  in  the  case  of  trochaic, 
iambic  and  spondaic  oxytones  (_  6,  ^  ^,  and  -  ^),  and  polysyl- 
labic oxytones.  Examples  are :  vdpos  (  water-serpent '  (Homer)  =: 
Sk.  udrds  '  water-animal ' ;  KOJXOS  '  shell '  —  Sk.  qaiikhds  ;  TTO/IS  "=. 
Sk.  pur  is ;  oyKos  '  bend,  hook  '  =  Sk.  ankds ;  ZKTOS  '  sixth  '  ~  Sk. 
sast/ia's ;  irep-Trros  —  Sk.  pafiQathds.  Much  the  simplest  explanation 
of  the  paroxytonesis  of  KVK\OS  is  to  regard  it  as  the  recessively 
accented  accentual  equivalent  of  Sk.  cakrds.  KVK^OS  :  *KfeK\os  : 
cakrds  =  VTTVOS  :  *affirvos  •=•  Sk.  svdpnas,  Zend  qafno  =  Old 
Norse  svefn  (orig.  Germ.  *svtfnos).  Kluge  KZ.  XXVI  100,  and 
Wheeler,  p.  23,  prefer  to  derive  KVK\OS  direct  from  the  paroxytone 
German  forms,  Anglo-Saxon  hveohl,  Old  Norse  hvel  (for  *hvehl)  ; 
both  from  a  German  stem  hvehlo-. 

Singular  is  the  explanation  which  is  proposed  on  p.  33  for  the 
accentuation  of  abstract  nouns  in  -ns-  (-<m)>  which  are  recessive 
without  exception :  cf.  Historical  and  Critical  Remarks,  p.  50  (30). 
These  were  originally  oxytones,  as  is  shown  by  their  vocalism  and 
the  prevailingly  reported  oxytonesis  in  Vedic  and  German.1  But 
in  Greek  the  whole  type  is  completely  in  the  bonds  of  the  '  reces- 
sive '  accent '.  ^e'cris,  pv^is  and  pevcris,  TTIHTTIS  and  Trevcris,  yevcriS)  yvoxris, 
atipoiais,  aio-^o-ty,  aXcocriy,  ^TTjtm,  /na^cris,  etc.  Wheeler,  p.  34,  States 

categorically  that  this  accentuation  of  the  type  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  abstracts  in  -m  (-o-is)  compounded  with  prepositions  were 
originally  accented  on  the  preposition :  Sk.  dpaciti  '  reverence,'  cf. 
aTTono-is ;  ut-krdnti  '  ascent ';  prd-drpti '  haughtiness';  prd-niti  ( guid- 
ance,' etc.  They  therefore  had  room  for  the  development  of  the 
secondary  accent,  thus :  IK/SOO-I?,  di/a/SA^cm,  avairtvcriS)  dcpatpeo-ts,  etc., 
and  from  these  the  accent  of  the  uncompounded  abstracts  was 
derived  by  transfer.  This  explanation  is  subject  to  suspicion  to 
begin  with,  because  the  parallel  formation  of  the  perfect  passive 
participles  in  -ids  (verbals  in  -TO?)  when  compounded  with  prepo- 
sitions also  accents  the  preposition,  and  yet  never  makes  the  least 
attempt  to  encroach  upon  the  uncompounded  forms.  Thus  we 
have  Sk.  vi-cyuta  '  fallen  apart ':  cyutd  l  moved,  fallen ';  dva- 
naddha  ( bound  down  ';  naddhd '  bound  ';  prd-vista  '  entered  into ': 
vistd  '  entered  ';  dva-ruddha  '  enclosed ':  ruddhd '  obstructed,'  etc. : 

1  For  a  few  cases  in  which  the  accent  of  abstracts  in  -ti-s  seems  to  have  left 
the  final  syllable  and  passed  to  the  radical  syllable  in  proethnic  times,  see 
Bloomfield,  Am.  Journ.  Phil.  I  296,  and  Wheeler,  p.  33  (where  other  refer- 
ences may  be  found). 


30 

see  Bruno  Lindner,  Altindische  Nominalbildung,  p.  71.  In  the 
same  way  regularly  in  Greek  e/cSoroy  :  Soros ;  d/i<pi/3X  177-05-  :  /SAqros ; 

€fJL7T\r)KTOS    '.     7r\TJKTOS   ',     aTTOTfXfVTIJTOS     '.     T€\€VTT)TOS,     CtC.          And     CVCn     if     it 

were  granted  that  the  absorption  of  the  accent  of  the  uncom- 
pounded  nouns  in  -TIS  (-cuy)  by  the  compounded  might  have  been 
accomplished,  although  the  old  relations  in  the  verbals  in  TOS  were 
left  undisturbed1 — a  freaky  choice  of  analogy — it  does  not  appear 
clear  in  what  way  the  accent  of  aTroYio-is  could  have  affected  the 
prehistoric  *™o-i's  so  as  to  render  it  nW.  Wheeler's  explanation 
approaches  within  dangerous  proximity  of  a  method  which  he  else- 
where takes  especial  pains  to  deprecate.  The  recessive  accent,  he 
says  (p.  6),  is  '  a  principle  of  accentuation,  and  embraces  paroxy- 
tones,  proparoxytones  and  properispomena.2  It  would  therefore 
be  necessary  that  the  various  accentual  types  arising  in  the  inflec- 
tion of  airoTivis  should  have  affected  severally  the  corresponding 
cases  and  numbers  of  *no-i'r.  In  other  words : 

Nom.  sing.  dnoTKns  changes   *TUTIS     tO  TLO-IS. 

Gen.  sing,  anorio-ios         "  *TIO-IOS    "   TiVios. 

Ace.  sing.  dnoTto-Lv  *ri<riv      "    rtViv,  etc. 

For  my  part  I  do  not  understand  in  what  sense  the  historical 
paroxytones  TLO-IS  and  rtW  can  be  imagined  due  to  the  proparoxy- 
tones d-rroTio-is  and  oTrorto-tj/,  unless  the  principle  of  recession  in  Mrta-is 
and  dnoTio-iv,  and  that  too  in  the  most  abstract  version  imaginable, 
is  supposed  to  repeat  itself  in  TICKS  and  TLO-IV — the  very  assumption 
which  he  contends  against.  The  explanation  of  the  recession  in 
the  action-nouns  in  -TIS  (-o-ts)  is  I  think  as  follows  :  The  large  mass 
of  abstracts  in  the  language  are  recessive  or  barytone :  they  are  not 
accented  upon  the  ultimate.  So  the  three  most  prominent  types  : 
neuters  in  -os  (ycvos) ;  neuters  in  -pa  (^eu/ia) ;  masculines  in  -o-  (Xo^oy, 
(pdpos).  The  inherited  contrast  between  oxytone  nomina  agentis  and 
barytone  nomina  actionis  (<popds  :  <£opos,  \jsevdrjs :  ^e^fios)  is  kept  alive 
and  even  extended  beyond  its  old  limits  (d6\ixos  'a  long  race- 
course,'based  upon  do\ix6s  =  Zend  daregha,  Sk.  dirghd  'long,' 
Lat.  largus,  in  imitation  of  rpo^os  :  rpo^os).  The  forms  in  *-Tls  (*-o-i's) 
can  easily  have  followed  the  accentuation  of  these  abstract  types, 

1  Nay  even  there  is  a  vigorous  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  accentual  type  of 
the  uncompounded  oxytones  to  encroach  upon  the  recessive  compounds,  e.  g. 
dm/zerp^rdf,  Trapappjjrdg,  KaradvrjTog,  ovfKpeproc,  etc. ;  see  L.  v.  Schroeder,  KZ. 
XXIV  122.     For  the  difference  in  the  function  of  the  compounded  oxytones 
and  barytones  see  Gottling  p.  313,  Kuhner  I,  p.  415. 

2  Compare  the  foot-note  on  p.  6. 


and  if  the  Greek  language  really  brought  with  it  from  the  common 
stock  sporadic  instances  of  paroxy tones  (pdais  ==  Sk.  gdtis  == 
Goth,  gaqiimps ;  cf.  above,  p.  29,  note),  these  may  have  helped  on 
that  analogy. 

Still  more  peculiar  is  the  use  which  Wheeler  makes  of  the  unim- 
paired etymological  oxytonesis  of  several  substantival  types  in 
order  to  prove  his  theory  that  dissyllabic  forms  are  not  recessive. 
So  notably  the  verbals  in  -rdy.  On  page  27  we  have  a  list  of 
dissyllabic  forms  of  that  category  :  faros  :  Sk.  gatds ;  K\VTOS  =  Sk. 
pnf&&  =  OHG.  hint  and  Anglo-Saxon  hludy  both  according  to 
Verner's  law  from  Germanic  hlifods.  But  he  nowhere  tells  us  upon 
what  ground  he  makes  the  undisturbed  oxytonesis  of  these  forms 
dependent  upon  their  dissyllabic  and  dichronic  character.  Are  there 
no  trisyllabic  verbal  adjectives  in  -r6s  with  the  same  claim  to  origi- 
nality as  the  dissyllabic  ones  ?  The  types  ri^a-ro's-  —  Lat.  ama-tus  ; 
(poprj-ros  =  Lat.  dele-tus ;  purGa-ros  =  Lat.  aegrd-tus  ;  /ze^-rds-,  o-iceXe- 
TOS,  fpire-Tos  =  mOflt-tuS,  habi-tus ;  cpa-ros  (epa-cr-ros)  '.  Sk.  ari-S 
1  friendly  '  (?  Pick)  ;  *dapa-Tog  in  dddparos  =  Sk.  dami-tds  =.  Lat. 

domi-tus ;     yeXa-a-ros    *.    ye\do>    (cf.    yeXd-er-(rai)  ;     Gr.    e/xe-ros  ^^  Sk. 

vami-tds  =  Lat.  vomi-tus  ;  further  dvi/a-rdf ;  SiSaK-rds  ;  dy^-ro's  ; 
afoOtf-ras,  dptdfjirj-Tos ',  fidffiXev-Tos  are  either  directly  inherited  from 
the  Indo-European  or  are  more  or  less  modified  '  continuators '  of 
I.  E.  types.1  Their  numerical  representation  is  probably  more 
extensive  than  that  of  the  dissyllabic  forms.  He  does  not  even 
employ  the  ordinary  domestic  remedial  expedient — to  which  we  all 
of  us  resort  for  good  and  for  bad — of  explaining  the  undisturbed 
oxytonesis  of  the  polysyllabic  forms  as  due  to  the  analogy  of  the 
dissyllabic  forms.  He  simply  mentions,  78  pages  later  (p.  105),  two 
polysyllabic  verbals  in  -T6s,  a^iros  and  eparor  under  his  fifth 
division :  '  when  the  inherited  accent  lay  nearer  to  the  end  of  the 
word  than  the  place  of  the  secondary  accent  a  vacillation  took 
place,  which  was  decided  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other.'  They 
appear  here  quite  accidentally,  as  it  it  were,  as  representatives  of 
those  who  chose  to  retain  the  old  accent.  Surely  the  undisturbed 
oxytonesis  in  all  uncompounded  verbals4  is  a  definite  property  of 
the  entire  category,  inherited  from  the  common  period,  unaffected 

1  Cf.  now  especially  Karl  Ferdinand  Johansson,  De  Derivatis  Verbis  Con- 
tractis  Linguae  Graecae  (Upsala  Universitets  Arsskrift,  1886),  pp.  96,97,  100. 

2  This  oxytonesis  makes  inroads  even  upon  the  compounded  forms  :  dta/nerprj- 
76$,  TrapappvTos,  KaTaOvrrrk,  av^eprdr,  etc.     See  Leopold  v.  Schroeder  in  KZ. 
XXIV  122,  and  note  2  on  p.  30. 


32 

by  all  later  vicissitudes  of  Greek  accentuation,  whether  we  call 
them  secondary,  enclitic,  or  recessive  accentuation.  This  oxy- 
tonesis  is  moreover  no  doubt  to  be  considered  along  with  the 
oxytonesis  of  the  very  numerous  active  participles,  e.  g.  e&v  —  Sk. 
sdn  ;  la>v  —  Sk.  ydn  ;  ora?;  &*{$',  8ovs',  upvvsi  Sk.  Tnvdn\  \nr<av:  Sk. 


ricdn  ;  XeXoiTra*  :  Sk.  ririkvahs-,  etc.  This  brings  us  to  another 
even  more  serious  manifestation  of  the  same  error.  Wheeler,  in 
deference  to  his  theory,  has  divided  artificially  in  his  presentation 
the  accentuation  of  just  those  oxytone  active  participles  :  palpably 
the  most  single  in  origin  and  treatment.  On  p.  38  we  have  the  undis- 
turbed oxytonesis  oi\nro)v'=.ricdn  ;  ewv  :  uqdnt-  ;  a-ropvts  :  strnvdn  ; 
l<ov  \ydnt\  eo)v  :  sdn  ascribed  to  their  dissyllabic  character.1  The 
perfect  active  participle  appears  again  on  page  105  (XeXotTrcos-,  Trrfcv- 
y<bs,  TTf(pv<as,  etc.  :  Sk.  ririkvahs,  bubhujvahs-,  babhuvahs-,  etc.),  as 
\  though  there  were  no  link  which  binds  together  the  accentuation  of 

the  dissyllabic  and  trisyllabic  types  in  their  common  functional 
properties.  He  ought  to  have  been  deterred  from  this  error  by  his 
own  statement  (p.  67),  that  the  old  middle  participles  degap.evrj 
'  cistern,'  da^vfj  *  lowland,'  most  capable  of  developing  the  '  sec- 
ondary '  accent,  remain  oxytone.  All  this  is  of  one  piece,  and  in 
my  treatise  these  facts  were  presented  in  peculiarly  strong  relief: 
cf.  especially  Historical  and  Critical  Remarks,  p.  50  (30). 

For  the  same  reason  I  cannot  grant  in  any  sense  that  examples 
based  upon  the  undisturbed  oxytonesis  of  dissyllabic  adjectives 
in  -p6s  prove  that  dissyllabic  forms,  as  such,  preserve  the  old 
accentuation.  It  is  true  that  naKpos=.  OHG.  magar;  frpos  'dry' 
==  Sk.  ksdrds  'caustic';  £vp6s  —  ksurds  'razor';  further,  ^v8p6s 
Xi/3pos-,  (m<£pdff,  (TaTTpos,  etc.,  are  oxytone  and  dissyllabic,  but  this 
fact  is  rendered  pointless  as  far  as  the  theory  is  concerned  by 
icpos,  lapos  =•  Sk.  isirds  ;  <me-p6s  =  Sk.  piva-rds  ;  cpvOpos  —  Sk. 
rudhirds  ;  raxe-pos1,  Traye-poy,  (pavc-pos,  p.ia-pos  ',  Ka6a-p6s  "=.  githl-rds 
(Wheeler,  p.  6l),  /3pia-p6s,  ^aXa-pcs-,  0o/3e-poy,  TrXoKe-pos1,  rpo/ze-poff, 

TTwOe-pos,  irovrj-pos,  /Mo^^-po?,  \iyvp6s,  and  a  large  number  of  others  ; 
cf.  Johansson,  loc.  cit.  p.  97. 

Surely  any  consideration  which  puts  these  facts  into  any  other 
light  than  that  into  which  the  verbals  in  -roy  are  put  above  is  mis- 

1  The  motive  by  which  Wheeler  is  induced  to  account  in  this  way  for  forms 
like  ALTTUV,  e/cwv,  aropvijg  escapes  my  comprehension.  They  are  iambic  forms,  and 
according  to  his  theory  are  capable  of  taking  the  secondary  accent.  They 
would  belong  along  with  /IfAofTrwf,  Tre^evywf,  Tre^vwf,  etc.,  to  his  category  V, 
aside  from  the  criticism  given  above.  The  same  difficulty  I  find  below  in  the 
case  of  the  agent-nouns  in  -T^p,  -/^",  -futv,  etc. 


33 

leading.  These  adjectives  have  preserved  the  original  oxytonesis 
as  a  category,  and  have — barring  singular  cases — come  in  no  way 
under  the  influence  of  the  '  recessive '  accent,  whatever  this  be. 
I  cannot  for  my  part  comprehend  at  all  why  we  find  (p.  36) 
the  nomina  agentis  in  -rtjp  introduced  in  illustration  of  the  first 
thesis.  All  the  examples  given  on  this  very  page  go  to  disprove 
the  theory:  they  are  either  iambic  dissyllables,  as  dorrjp,  Trorfp, 

0er;;p,    orarqp,    Or    Spondaic    dissyllables,    as    Swrjyp,    {evKTrjp,   yva>(rrJ)p, 

dwrfp.  All  these  are  forms  which  ought  to  have  the  *  secondary ' 
accent,  and  Wheeler's  reason  for  cataloguing  them  on  p.  36  rather 
than  on  p.  105  is  obscure  in  the  extreme  (fy^p  occurs  in  both 
places).  All  of  these  examples,  as  also  yeverfp  =  Sk.  jdni-tar, 
Lat.  geni-tor,  aXe^njp  :  Sk.  raksitdr,  Aar^p,  aXeiTrr^p,  xaPaKTW> 

Treucmyp,  revKTrjp,  TreiOT^p,   z/euorqp  and  vevrrjp,  etc.   (cf.   p.    105),   again 

simply  exhibit  an  old  oxytone  category,  left  with  its  inherited 
accentuation  undisturbed  by  the  later  vicissitudes  of  Greek  accen- 
tuation. All  of  them  ought  to  have  the  recessive  accent  in  order 
to  prove  anything  for  the  theory  of  a  *  secondary '  tone. 

I  will  continue  no  longer  to  point  out  perfectly  parallel  errors  in 
the  rest  of  the  material  arrayed  in  support  of  the  first  thesis.  Pages 
13-38  are  in  my  opinion  honeycombed  with  erroneous  presenta- 
tion :  the  essential  difficulties  I  have  pointed  out  thus  far.  It  will 
not  prove  difficult  to  apply  the  same  adverse  criticism  to  the  use 
which  is  made  of  masculines  in  -/*//?  and  -/uo>i/  on  p.  36 :  they  are 
capable  of  taking  the  '  secondary  '  accent,  and  belong  to  category 
V ;  to  the  treatment  of  the  adjectives  in  -vs  on  p.  32  (cf.  eXa^vs-  on 
p.  105) ;  of  the  nomina  agentis  in  -6s  on  p.  29  (cf.  doiSoy,  dpoifios, 
dpoyyoff,  afjLopyos,  etc.). 

Only  one  other  point  needs,  I  think,  especial  mention,  as  it 
involves  a  view,  held  as  far  as  I  know,  universally  and  yet  methinks 
incorrectly:  It  has  been  the  custom  up  to  date  in  comparative 
grammar  to  regard  equations  like  K\efos  =  Sk.  grdvas ;  avdos  "=• 
Sk.  dndhas ;  Kpef  as  =  Sk.  krdvis ;  ^6v  =  Sk.  mddhu  ;  yews  =  Sk. 
hdnus  ;  Tep/ua  =  Sk.  tdrman ;  ftiuris  =  Sk.  gdtis  =.  Goth,  gaqiimps  ; 
aKpis  =  Sk.  dgris,  etc.,  as  expressions  of  accentual  equality.1  This 
may  be  regarded  as  true  in  so  far  as  the  acute  on  a  short  syllable 

1  An  attempt  to  cite  all  the  literature  in  support  of  this  statement  would 
involve  references  to  every  author  who  has  considered  Greek  accent  from  the 
day  of  Bopp's  Vergleichendes  Accentuationssystem  down  to  our  own  day. 
I  will  therefore  merely  refer  to  Bopp's  work,  especially  pp.  25-35  >  Bloomfield, 
Historical  and  Critical  Remarks,  p.  39  (19) ;  Wheeler,  p.  26  fg. ;  Brugmann, 
Grundriss  I,  §676,  i. 


34 


in  historical  times  in  Greek,  the  udatta  on  a  short  syllable  in  his- 
torical times  in  Sanskrit,  and  finally  the  I.  E.  acute  ('  cut  tone ')  on 
a  short  do  not  differ  from  another  in  quality,  barring  perhaps  such 
difference  as  is  involved  in  the  question  whether  they  represent 
chromatic  or  expiratory  accentuation,  or  a  combination  of  both. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  summit-tone  has  never  been  anywhere  else 
in  these  types.  And  yet  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  they  do 
not  after  all  really  exhibit  the  recessive  accentuation.  It  must  be 
considered  wrong  from  the  point  of  view  of  any  theory  to  regard 
the  accent  of  finite  verbal  types  like  fa'pov  (II.  3.  245),  an  augment- 
less  imperfect  3d  plur.,  as  preserving  in  reality  the  same  accentu- 
ation as  Vedic  bhdran,  I.  E.  bheron(f],  in  spite  of  the  perfect 
coincidence  externally.  The  form  cpcpov  is  recessive,  for  enclitic 
•f-  *(pcpov ;  it  coincides  therefore  with  Vedic  enclitic  bharan.  This 
example  is  typical  for  every  finite  verbal  form  consisting  of  a  paroxy- 
tone  pyrrhic  dissyllable.  What  right  have  we  to  assume  that  it  is 
otherwise  in  the  corresponding  types  of  the  noun  ?  What  right  have 
we  to  regard  the  'recessive'  accent  as  suspended  in  K\efos,  etc., 
while  finding  it  in  full  force  in  ^eCSo?,  eiSos,  epe/3os,  etc.,  and  in  certain 
cases  of  the  inflection  of  nXefo?  itself:  KKef<(<i)<Qvt  etc.?  I  venture 
therefore  to  assert  that  these  types  also  are  in  reality  recessive. 
There  is  in  fact  nothing  but  the  '  recessive  principle  '  to  be  found 
in  all  dissyllabic  word -forms,  aside  from  the  retention  of  proethnic 
oxytonesis,  and  some  special  deflections  in  every  direction,  due  no 
doubt  every  time  to  singular  analogies  between  word  and  word,  or 
words  and  words. 

If  the  preceding  exposition  is  at  all  correct,  then  the  barrier 
which  Wheeler  has  erected  about  dissyllabic  word-forms  must  be 
considered  as  broken.  To  begin  with,  there  is  no  difference 
between  category  I  and  V,  aside  again  from  special  deflections 
arising  from  individual  analogical  effects.  I  have  shown  above 
sufficiently  that  he  pursues  an  artificial  and  misleading  method 
when  he  categorizes  dissyllabic  forms  with  the  suffixes  -TO?, 
-p6s,  -6s,  as  well  as  monosyllabic  and  dissyllabic  active  parti- 
ciples, under  thesis  I,  as  not  being  able  to  retract  their  accent  on 
account  of  their  dissyllabic  (or  monosyllabic)  character,  while  at 
the  same  time  reporting  in  a  different  part  of  the  book  that  poly- 
syllabic forms  of  the  same  categories  likewise  refuse  to  retract  the 
accent.  I  would  only  add  to  the  details  given  above  that  there  is 
no  indication  in  the  language  that  the  recessive  forms  in  category 
V  are  even  numerically  better  represented  than  in  category  I. 


35 

There  is  no  boundary  line  of  any  sort  between  nominal  monosyl- 
lables, dissyllables  and  trisyllables  any  more  than  between  finite 
verbal  monosyllables,  dissyllables  and  trisyllables  :  pav,  fifj,  XiW, 
olda,  (pepu,  (pepofjicv,  (pepcopev.  All  these  types  are  repeated  in  the 
noun,  but  they  have  not  become  an  infallible  rule  there  :  they  have 
absorbed  some  types,  while  sparing  others  in  a  measure. 

The  third  thesis  contains  material  which  is  absolutely  otiose. 
Forms  like  §a>§eKa'=Sk.dvada$a;  a0^iroff=Sk.  dksitas;  eWepoi/nrSk. 
dntaram  ;  vo-rcpos  =  Sk.  iittaras  ;  Voc.  Qvyarep  =  Sk.  diihitar;  o/cra>- 
novs  =  Sk.  astapdd,  etc.,  prove  nothing  for  any  theory.  Etymo- 
logical accentuation,  enclitic  accentuation  (if  that  be  true),  or  the 
assumed  secondary  accentuation,  all  meet  on  neutral  ground.  I  \ 
would  only  add  here  a  statement  parallel  to  that  made  above  (p.  33 
fg.)  in  connection  with  words  like  K\COS,  av6os,  Kpeas,  pe'Qv,  etc.  :  I  see 
no  reason  for  regarding  the  accentuation  of  the  type  represented 
by  dadtKo,  evrepov,  etc.,  as  anything  else  than  recessive.  The  coin- 
cidence of  the  accent  with  that  of  I.  E.  duodekm,  enterom,  etc.,  is 
indeed  merely  a  coincidence,  as  is  shown  by  eWpou,  eWpow,  etc. 

We  are  thus  left  with  those  longer  word-forms,  in  which  the  ety- 
mological accent  lay  so  near  the  beginning  of  the  word  as  to  leave 
more  than  three  moras  (or  four  in  trochaic  polysyllables)  unac- 
cented :  *rj8ia>v  =  Sk.  svadiyan  ;  *<pepofjL€vos  =  Sk.  bhdramdnas.  As 
willing  as  I  should  be  on  a  priori  grounds  to  admit  the  effects  of 
a  secondary  accent  in  the  apparent  shift  forward  of  the  summit- 
tone  in  rjSiuv  and  cpcpopevos,  I  find  myself  constrained  to  judge  that 
there  is  no  more  real  evidence  of  its  quondam  existence  in  such 
cases  than  in  any  of  the  preceding,  barring  of  course  combinations 
consisting  of  an  orthotone  word  plus  an  enclitic,  where  the  second 
accent  has  always  been  characterized  as  '  secondary.'  In  the  first 
place  it  is  to  be  considered  that  the  terminus  a  quo  from  which  the 
count  of  moras  starts  in  this  category  is  evidently  the  same  as  in 
the  preceding  categories  :  the  final  mora  of  the  word.  It  seems 
therefore  very  unlikely  that  an  essentially  different  principle  was 
in  operation  here  than  in  the  preceding  cases.  It  would  be  totally  V 
against  the  spirit  of  Wheeler's  theory  to  accept  this  secondary  accent 
as  anything  else  than  a  phonetic  law,  pervading  the  entire  material 
of  the  language  ;  cf.  his  remarks  on  p.  8  and  9,  bottom.  But  we  found 
the  assumption  of  a  secondary  accent  in  the  types  vavs  (Aeolic 
Zev?)  and  eiSo?  an  impossible  one:  therefore  it  is  also  unlikely 
here.  Secondly,  the  mode  of  manifestation  of  the  secondary  accent 
in  the  polysyllabic  forms  would  be  an  extraordinary  one.  It  strikes 


me  that  a  sober  definition  of  a  secondary  accent  means  that  the 
utterance  starting  with  the  summit  tone  has  a  tendency  to  repetition 
of  the  stress  or  pitch  at  regular  intervals,  or  bars  from  the  primary 
accent,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  end  of  the  word,  already 
accented,  can  be  introduced  as  the  guide  for  the  deposit  of  the 
secondary  accent.  If  the  I.  E.  word  bheromenos  =.  Sk.  bhdramd- 
nas  developed  a  secondary  accent  upon  the  second  syllable  in 
Greek,  so  as  to  produce  fapopevos,  we  ought  to  have  the  secondary 
accentuation  in  every  case  upon  the  syllable  following  the  primary 
accent.  Instead  of  this  it  appears  two  syllables  from  the  primary 
accent  in  aveirlBeros  =  Sk.  dnapihitas  =  I.  E.  nnepidhdtos ;  three 
syllables  in  aveniOtrov  =  Sk.  dnapihitasya  =  I.  E.  hnepidhdtosio,  etc. 
To  put  the  case  still  more  strongly  by  bringing  an  example  of  an 
enclitic  finite  verb,  which  inclines  upon  the  preceding  orthotone 
word :  Is  there  any  likelihood  that  the  phonetic  need  which  did 
not  allow  even  one  unaccented  Qjrave)  syllable  to  intervene 
between  primary  and  secondary  accentuation  in  ^epd/za/os-  =  I.  E. 
bheromenos,  later  fapopwos,  would  be  content  to  allow  four  grave 
syllables  to  intervene  in  I.  E.  meghisthom  bhoreiomedha  =:  ptyiarov 
(popcofjLfda  ?  One  asks  further :  If  this  accentuation  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  history  of  the  word  as  such  (the  reverse  is  assumed  if 
we  adopt  the  theory  of  enclisis),  what  right  has  one  to  disregard 
the  grave  syllables  in  the  word  following  the  one  for  which  the 
accent  is  being  determined  ?  To  illustrate,  why  are  the  first  two 
grave  syllables  of  AaftpoV  in  such  a  sentence  as  fieyio-rov  cpopeontda 
0r)o-avp6v  left  out  of  account  in  fixing  the  accent  of  (popf6p.€0a  if  this 
accent  is  not  determined  by  the  character  of  (popeopeda  as  a  word, 
but  by  the  number  of  unaccented  syllables  preceding  and  following  ? 
Wheeler's  own  words  on  p.  7  can  be  brought  up  against  him  :  '  In 
der  Phonetik  des  Satzes  sind  aber  die  vier  letzten  Silben  in  Sk. 
tttiksamahdi  ebenso  sehr  enclitisch  wie  die  Verbform  in  vt'gvd  ekasya 
vimidas  titiksate,  RV.  II  13.  3;  die  zwei  letzten  Silben  in  fapo- 
peQa  sowol  wie  die  zwei  letzten  in  dem  Lautcomplex  &v6p&- 
TTovriva.'  If  this  is  merely  a  question  of  sentence-phonetics,  in 
which  the  individuality  of  the  word,  which  is  maintained  particu- 
larly by  its  word  accent,  is  given  up,  we  must  consider  any  group 
of  unaccented  syllables  in  the  same  light,  and  the  development  of 
the  secondary  accent  on  the  unaccented  syllables  of  ^(yurrov 
(j>opcofjic0a  Qr](rav)p6v  would  yield  one  secondary  tone  on  the  syl- 
lable Ba  of  (popeopeQa,  a  second  one  on  the  syllable  e  of  (£o/>eo/ie0a, 
and  a  third  one  on  the  syllable  rov  of  peyio-rov  in  addition  to  the 


w* 


37 

accents  actually  written.  Cf.  also  the  statement  on  p.  119  :  '  Die 
Eintheilung  des  Satzes  in  Worter  ist  immer  mehr  oder  weniger 
kiinstlich.  Dieselbe  miisste  sich  in  jedem  verschiedenen  Satz 
je  nach  dem  Character  des  betreffenden  Wortes  und  seinen  Ge- 
brauch  in  dem  betreffenden  Satze  verschieden  gestalten.' 

Further,  he  who  puts  the  grave  syllables  in  a  single  word 
upon  the  same  level  as  the  enclitic  syllables  in  a  combination 
of  an  orthotone  word  plus  an  enclitic,  *av<-7ri0fTos  like  avBpwirovnva, 
ought  to  point  out  some  reason  why  both  of  the  accents  in  the 
latter  type  are  retained  (av6pam6vri.va),  while  one  is  given  up  in  the 
former  (avtirlOtroi).  In  the  nexus  of  the  sentence  there  is  no  more 
reason  for  one  than  the  other.  And  if  one  were  to  assume  that 
the  first  accent  of  dv0pa>7r6vTiva  is  due  to  an  analogical  restoration 
after  the  single  word  avdpanov,  in  other  words  that  the  falling  aside  \ 
of  one  accent  in  the  early  types  *$epd/zevoff,  *av€m6eTos,  *dve7ri0fTov,  ^. 
etc.,  was  due  to  a  law  according  to  which  a  single  word  could  /, 
bear  but  one  summit  tone,  he  would  still  have  to  point  out  the  * 
reason  why  the  first  and  original  accent  always  succumbed  in  the 
struggle  for  existence  ?  I  do  not  believe  that  this  could  be  ac- 
counted for  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  some  external  analogy. 
And  that  would  necessarily  be  the  analogy  of  the  finite  forms  of 
the  verb.  One  zs  absolutely  driven  to  recognize  the  possibility  that 
the  analogy  of  accentual  types  is  capable  of  being  extended  with- 
out reference  to  the  function  of  the  words  involved.  I  shall  present 
this  view  more  systematically  below,  and  would  submit  and  empha- 
size that  accentual  investigations  which  exclude  this  point  of  view 
will  ever  tend  to  violent  and  complicated  assumptions,  such  as  shall 
carry  their  own  refutation  with  them. 

I  believe  that  nothing  has  as  yet  appeared  which  is  calculated 
to  weaken  my  theory  that  the  recessive  accentuation  in  Greek  is  a 
modification" of  a  special  Greek  law  of  enclisis.  which  has  spread 
from  the  finite  verb  until  it  has  absorbed  many  quantitative  word- 
types  in  general  in  the  Pan-Hellenic  speech  and  all  in  the  Aeolic. 
After  our  renewed  survey  of  the  ground,  and  after  having  demon- 
strated the  untenableness  of  Wheeler's  theory,  the  feeling  of 
security  in  entertaining  the  theory  of  enclisis  must  be  enhanced 
materially.  There  is  as  far  as  can  be  seen  no  other  nov  or£  for 
the  recessive  accent,  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  below  that  such 
objections  as  have  been  advanced  are  either  not  well  taken,  or 
are  to  be  set  aside  by  modifications  which  do  not  affect  the  main 
current  of  the  theory.  I  will  for  the  sake  of  clearness  state  the 
theory  point  for  point : 


38 

1.  The  Greek  language  exhibits  distinctly  in  its  treatment  of 
enclitics   an   aversion  against   a  limitless   enclisis.     The  normal 
restriction  of  this  enclisis  is  executed  by  repeating  the  summit  tone 
or  by  supplying  with  a  secondary  tone  —  the  difference  does  not 
appear  in  writing  —  after  a  certain  number  of  syllables,  or  rather 
moras,  as  in  the  following  examples  :  QiXovrivos,  avdpanos  ns,  av&panrov 
nva,  av0pa7ros  (prjvi,  etc.     This  secondary  accentuation  is  therefore 
the  syntactical  property  of  a  combination  of  two  words  ,  the  first  of 
which  is  accented  in  such  a  way  that  more  than  the  permitted 
number  of  unaccented  moras  would  follow.     A  single  word  of  any 
number  of  syllables  does  not  carry  more  than  one  accent  unless 

followed  by  such  an  enclitic.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
such  a  secondary  accent  develops  independently  from  these  syn- 
tactical conditions  upon  any  number  of  grave  syllables  however 
great  :  witness  e.  g.  the  interval  of  five  grave  syllables  in  such  a 

Combination  as  peyio-Tov  dij^aycoyov.         ~ 

2.  The  finite  verb  in  principal  clauses  was  enclitic  in  I.  E.  times 

fand  is  so  in  Greek,  when  the  number  of  syllables  in  all  the  forms 
of  a  given  paradigm  does  not  exceed  the  legal  number  of  moras. 
Such  cases  are  preserved  in  the  inflection  of  «/u  and  fopi.  Elsewhere 
/,  A  the  enclisis  of  the  finite  verb  is  checked  by  the  excess  of  moras  in 
the  word  to  be  inclined.    Wherever  some  word  or  words  in  a  given 
'   /;W  paradigm  exceed  the  number  of  syllables  which  are  allowed  to  be 
0  /          inclined,  the  entire  paradigm  is  orthotone  :  those  forms  which  have 
three  or  more  moras  take  the  enclitic  tone  on  the  third  or  fourth 
mora  from  the  end;  when  a  member  of  the  paradigm  does  not 
.     n^.  ^  ~  contain  so  many  moras  it  places  the  accent  as  near  to  the  theo- 
i+       -it-retically  correct  place  as  possible,  i.  e.  on  the  first  mora  of  the 

~~  j   C  word.      Thus,    j^8o6r)(T6p.€dat    ^-(pfpofifda,   -^-opvvtri)   -£-oi6V,    -^XtTrcs,    -^-/SJ/, 

/  <h,d  {'*£*+'       ^<pepero>;   ^<pe'pa>,  -c-arav  make  up  a  representative  group  of  enclitic 
./,  ^     o    verbal  types,  some  of  which  are  identical  with  accentual  types 

arising  out  of  a  combination  of  an  orthotone  word  plus  a  full  enclitic, 


lk  ft 
\> 


6.  g.   -t-cpepofjifda  '.  (ivQpamoi/Ti.va  ]   ^-opvvai  :  ScoKpern/y  ns  ,*    -e-fapera)  :  Trarfjp 

AIOU>  av6pa>K6s  TTOU,  etc.,  while  others  seem  not  to  have  any  parallel 
L)       among  the  ordinary  combinations  of  orthotone  word  plus  a  full 
'    enclitic.     Cf.  for  this  Chandler,  §935  fg.,  Wheeler,  pp.  119  fg.1 

1  I  would  not,  however,  as  Wheeler  has  done,  go  so  far  as  to  deny  the 
originality  of  all  combinations  which  do  not  coincide  with  the  verbal  law  :  to 
assume,  e.  g.,  that  avdpuTroc;  Ttg  and  avdpuirtiv  TIVUV  are  combinations  in  which 
the  position  of  the  secondary  accent  is  regulated  by  the  analogy  of  avdpuTrdv 
riva  seems  to  me  very  unlikely.  Indeed,  I  consider  that  the  assemblage  of 


39 


3-  The  question  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  enclitic  accentu- 
ation passed  from  the  verb  to  the  noun  has  been  surrounded  with 
unwarrantable  difficulties.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  retract  my  own 
surmise,  that  the  I.  E.  enclisis  of  vocatives  and  their  qualifying 
words  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  formed  the  bridge  for  the  transfer 
of  the  enclitic  accentuation  from  verb  to  noun.1  We  have  no  enclisis 
of  vocatives  reported  in  Greek  at  all  (no  cases  of  vocative  enclisis 
as  in  dpi  and  $»7/u),  and  it  is  perhaps  not  unlikely  that  the  treatment 
of  the  vocative  in  the  middle  of  a  clause  became  identical  with 
its  treatment  at  the  beginning  (with  I.  E.  accent  on  the  first  mora) 
before  the  transition  of  the  enclitic  recessive  accent  from  verb  to 
noun  took  place.  So  that  the  vocatives  probably  were  all  orthotone 
before  the  extension  of  the  verbal  enclisis  and  its  substitute,  reces- 
sion, into  the  noun  began.  I  believe  that  the  transition  from  verb 
to  noun  took  place  by  a  kind  of  analogy,  which  must  be  supposed 
to  be  largely  in  operation  in  £11  the  movements  of  accent.  This 
differs  from  the  kind  of  analogy  ordinarily  discussed,  in  substituting 
for  the  two  terms  form  and  function  the  two  terms  form  and  accent. 
I  can  make  my  meaning  clear  very  easily.  Supposing  we  have  a 
number  of  long  monosyllables  consisting  of  consonant  +  long  vowel 
-j-  consonant  pronounced  with  rising-falling  inflection  (A),  i.  e.  with 
circumflex  accent.  Let  us  designate  this  type  by  xay.  Let  us 
suppose  that  by  its  side  there  exists  a  single  instance  of  a  long 
monosyllable  consisting  of  consonant  •+•  long  vowel  -j-  consonant 
with  falling-rising  inflection  (\/),  i.  e.  with  cut  tone  (acute)  on  the 
syllable.  Let  us  designate  this  type  by  xay.  Will  any  one  be 
found  willing  to  doubt  that  this  single  case,  no  matter  how  great 
its  functional  distance  from  the  type  xay,  might  be  attracted  by 
the  latter  so  as  to  conform  to  them  in  inflection  of  voice,  as  well  as 
in  number,  arrangement  and  quantity  of  its  consonants  and  vowels  ? 
We  may  call  this — the  term  is  not  a  new  one — analogy  of  sound 
or  phonic  analogy  (lautliche  analogic).  The  principle  involved 
in  the  single  example  is~ofte without  which  the  rapid  permutations 
of  accentuation  will  never  be  explained.  Wheeler  labors  strenuously 
with  the  doctrine  advocated  in  my  essay,  that  change  in  accent 

cases  given  on  pp.  125-132  teaches  rather,  that  the  verbal  treatment  of  enclisis 
is  but  one  of  many  other  which  are  possible  in  the  language,  so  that  the  law  of 
verbal  enclisis  is  not  even  binding  for  all  combinations  of  orthotone  plus 
enclitic,  much  less  for  every  bit  of  unaccented  territory  as  in  the  forms  *rj6iuv 
and  *av£7r/6l£rof,  which  Wheeler  operates  with.  Evidently  we  do  not  as  yet 
understand  all  the  minutiae  of  Greek  sentence-accentuation. 

1  Cf.  Historical  and  Critical  Remarks,  62  (42) ;  Wheeler,  p.  7,  49. 


4o 

can  only  be  due  to  regular  phonetic  change  or  analogy.  But  the 
possibility  of  this  kind  of  analogy  does  not  seem  to  suggest  itself 
to  him.  What  straits  and  improbable  assumptions  he  is  led  to  by 
operating1  only  with  functional  analogy  we  saw  best  above  in  his 
explanation  of  the  completed  Aeolic  recession.  Instead  of  grant- 
ing that  phonic  types  equal  in  the  number  and  arrangement  of 
their  consonants,  equal  in  the  number  arrangement  and  quantity  of 
their  vowels,  but  differing  in  their  accentuation,  would  tend  to  extend 
the  similarity  by  allowing  the  accent  of  the  less  numerous  instances 
(or  for  that  matter  even  the  more  numerous  instances)  to  follow  that 
of  the  prevailing  ones,  he  prefers  the  assumption  that  all  the  thous- 
andfold instances  of  recession  in  the  Aeolic,  over  and  above  the 
Pan- Hellenic,  were  due  to  assimilation  within  the  paradigm.  But 
he  cannot  tell  us  what  mysterious  force  always  drove  the  simple 
paradigmatic  assimilation  into  the  arms  of  that  kind  of  analogy 
which  wound  up  with  the  accent  either  on  the  third  (fourth)  mora 
from  the  end,  or  as  near  to  it  as  the  number  of  moras  contained 
in  the  word  would  allow. 

Accordingly  I  fail  to  see  any  other  possibility  of  explaining  the 
ciigcumflexed  trochaic  dissyllables  (type  ~  w,  olfe,  cldos,  rovro^Bevpo), 
a  type  which  is  Pan- Hellenic,  without  any  exception  worth  remark- 
ing; cf.  above,  p."24.7  "IF  we  assume  that  it  belonged  originally  to 
finite  verbal  representatives  of  the  type,  due  to  recession,  we  have  the 
only  explanation  with  a  genuine  historical  background  which  has 
been  advanced  since  the  days  of  the  Misteli-Hadley  theory.  It  would 
be  interesting  but  unessential  to  see  statistics  as  to  the  relative 
frequency  of  the  verbal  and  non-verbal  forms.  I  do  not  venture 
to  assert  which  would  turn  out  more  numerous.  In  the  same 
manner  all  the  various  enclitic  verbal  types  of  more  than  three 
syllables  which  exhibit  the  accent  upon  the  antepenult  when  the 
ultima  is  short  (<popeVf">  <£opeoyiei>,  fopeopeOa)  must  have  proved  a 
phonetic  type  of  such  prevalence  and  attractiveness  that  all  other 
accentuation  before  the  antepenult  was  given  up  for  it.  All  the 
various  verbal  types  of  more  than  two  syllables,  which  exhibit  the 
accent  upon  the  penult  when  the  ultima  is  long  ((popeo>,  ecpopeo/^, 
etc.)  in  the  same  way  attracted  to  themselves  the  non-verbal  types 
corresponding.  We  cannot  escape  the  assumption  of  purely 
phonic  analogy  in  this  question,  and  though  this  kind  of  transfer 
seems  to  call  forth  our  sympathy  less  readily,  though  the  motive 
at  the  bottom  of  it  is  less  easily  apprehended  than  in  the  kind  of 
analogy  in  which  form  is  influenced  by  similarity  of  function,  it  is 


4' 

undoubtedly  at  work  in  the  development  of  accentual  systems. 
We  may  add  of  course  that  many  nouns  had  the  etymological  accent 
upon  the  same  place  as  the  corresponding  phonic  verbal  types, 
and  this  may  have  helped  the  process  of  transfer.  All  the  words 
assembled  in  Wheeler's  third  category  (p.  56  fg.)  are  of  this  sort. 
This  transfer  of  the  enclitic  and  recessive  accentuation  to  the  noun, 
etc.,  has  been  so  complete  that  only  a  few  phonetic  types  have 
resisted  it.  They  are  j-  (/3us,  Zcvi),  ^  C  (/3aros,  Bpaarvi) ;  ^  v6 

((piXrjTos,  yfverr/p,  lapos)  ',  ~  —  —  (KVVWV,  Trora/iwv,  'icr^/uot,  Tip.rjs  I  Hanssen 
KZ.  XXVII  614)5  ^  —  ^  [ofioios,  yeXoIo?,  epfj/Jios,  erot/zos1  I  Bloom- 

field,  p.  41  [21]  ;  Wheeler,  p.  113).  A  few  old  polysyllabic  paroxy- 
tones  may  also  be  mentioned  :  Uvai,  el&vai  :  Ved.  ddvdne ;  OKTUTTOVS  : 
Ved.  astapad-;  yeyeV&u  :  Ved.  gamddhydi,  etc.,  although  in  the 
last  two  cases  the  paroxytonesis  is  identical  with  the  'recessive' 
accent. 

But  of  these  also  the  majority  have  made  the  resistance  only  in 
part,  and  the  question  as  to  whether  a  given  form  gives  up  its 
etymological  accentuation  is  a  matter  which  is  usually  determined 
by  the  category  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the 
number  of  moras  or  syllables  of  which  the  word  consists.  It  is 
one  of  the  gravest  errors  of  Wheeler's  presentation  that  he  gave 
to  this  fact  a  different  coloring.  Dissyllabic,  trisyllabic,  and  partly 
even  quadrisyllable  (compounded)  verbal  adjectives  in  -rds ;  adjec- 
tives in  -p6s  and  -vs  ;  monosyllabic,  dissyllabic,  and  trisyllabic  active 
participles  (<ui/,  AITTQ>I/,  7re0uo>s),  etc.,  are  oxytone  throughout  the 
language.  On  the  other  hand,  dissyllabic  and  trisyllabic  nouns  in 
TIS  (-o-isO,  or  the  ordinals  in  /*o-,  fo-  (e^So/xoy,  oydofos  :  Ved.  saptamd-, 
astamd-^),  etc.,  are  recessive.  The  cause  of  the  transfer,  while  no 
doubt  many  times  based  upon  some  attraction  within  the  language 
(cf.  the  explanation  of  the  recessive  accent  of  the  abstracts  in  -TIS 
above,  p.  30),  is  in  most  cases  simply  a  tribute  to  the  more  preva- 
lent accentual  types,  as  TreXoo;?  =•  Ved.  paragus  ;  TTO'XI?  ~ pun's, 
and  many  others. 

MAURICE  BLOOMFIELD. 

BALTIMORE,  March,  1888. 


RETURN       CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO""^        202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 


DUE   AS  STAMPED   BELOW 

SfP  17OT 

IN  STACKS 

AUG171977 

ftFP    Pfff  WIT  1  T  E77 

ntv»  uln,AUu  if    ti 

= 

. 

FORM  NO.  DD  6, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA   94720 


YC  00370 


*  I  I « 


J79 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


•^Vv\"\  ;vH-^\.^*w:;    -;^.tv  ^-jr'~ 


X --->.. 


